9/10 Better than the first one, as expected.
Warning: Heavy spoilers for people who did not read the 3rd book!
It was better than the first movie on many points, especially the ones I expected it to be. But it still has some flaws, besides the obvious ones the first movie had as well.
First off, the obvious ones: Both movies fail to capture the scale of Katniss' inner stife concerning Peeta and Gale, and the influence of the home front (especially her sister and the role her mother had in the family.) I think this will severely lessen the impact of her sisters death in the final movie in 2015, just like it reduces the relationship Katniss has with her two 'boys' to a more common love triangle than it actually is.
In defence of the screen writers: it is hard to picture this strife on screen without getting long voice-over monologues, drag the movie out too much and make it boring. Since this choice was already made in the first movie, it was only logical they continued on this path for consistency.
- Secondly, the movies lose a lot of strength for people who did not read the books. This is because of the lack (or scarce amount) of background information. For non-readers this makes the basic outlines of the story a bit farfetched. (Why are there hunger games? What does the capitol wants to protect besides its own decadence? How come the districts didn't revolt earlier? These are a few questions that are easily asked, but not properly answered.)
Plot Development:
That being said, the 2nd movie manages to picture the cruelty of the capitol a lot better than the first one. This makes sense from a storyline perspective, since from this moment on Katniss gets more aware of the full scale of the oppresion in all the districts.
They stay true to the book, without getting to much attached to it. Maybe the first half (the victory tour) is a bit rushed, but that's understandable to avoid stretching out the movie too much.
Personally I think the movie needed 10-15 minutes extra to create that extra bit of (emotional) impact and explanation for a few things (like said earlier) or leave out a few scenes completely. Examples are the jabberjails in the arena or the replacement of the old peacekeeper. Also the conversation Katniss has with President Snow in her Victory Road home was too rushed, and lost its impact.
They managed to make some parts of the story even more clear, and the ending is way more satisfying than what Collins did originally. Less open-ended and more of a step-up to the next movie.
Acting:
Except for Donald Sutherland (President Snow ) I thought all the actors did a better job in the follow up movie than in the first one. It was obvious that they grew into their characters over time. Especially Elizabeth Banks (Effie) was exquisit and the faces Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss) did were top notch. She might be a bit too sweet and confident for Katniss, but she pulls it off. Also new character Johanna Mason, pictured by Jena Malone, was a really good casting decision.
The actors managed to give strong emotions to their characters, while they impressively managed to avoid overacting. Something that could happen easily in this story. They also got a few whimsical lines and responses in there that will make you smile.
Visual:
CGI were great, as expected of a modern high budget movie. They did not overdo it, which is a compliment for movies with this allure nowadays, and looked realistic, sharp and terrifying. Great job especially on the subtle way how they made the poiseness mist look. The only CGI I did not enjoy was the Tsunami (so the wave ON water, not when it came out of the forest.) This felt a bit cheap.
You notice the movie is by a different director, but nothing changed dramatically. Again, he jumps from 1 situation to the other a bit fast in the first part, and convo's are a bit cramped in because of the relatively fast scenes with information. So this can feel a bit messy. To make up for this, the arena scenes are detailed and beautfull. There are some interesting peek-throughs (deep shots) that keep the direct environment visible, and even one from a first person perspective. Not a fan of some of the close-ups though, they felt a bit cut-of at times.
Oh and costumes, great costumes that is, but A LOT of costumes :P
Sound:
I didn't really get up in your face, but managed to get the theme through to you at the important parts. Since I haven't paid attention to it in particular, that's all I have to comment on it unfortunately.
Enjoyment/Overall:
Great movie to watch, just like the first one. Has a good balance between action, stories, character development and originality. Depending on what kind of movies you like, the first half could be experienced as rushed or maybe uneventful, but the second part makes up for it in both cases.
All the flaws mentioned earlier are for the most part minor flaws, and do not compromise the movie for the most viewers.
ps. There were 2 'beeps' for the f-word when I watched it in cinema. I am interested if more people had this, and if someone knows if that will be on the DVD/Blu-ray too. Usually those words ain't censored in my country.
With the latest live action translation 'Cruella', Disney is trying to mimic the successful formula used for 'Maleficent',. Take an antagonist from one of their classics and switch her to an anti-hero protagonist. Pulling the same trick twice is difficult, even for veterans with big artistic freedoms, the strong studio influences don't do them many favors either.
Disney's firm grip on its own material is understandable, but as we see time and time again is more often than not problematic for most of their current live-action translations. There is not much in the story of 'Cruella' that makes any of the characters very relatable or recognizable for people unknown with the 'source' material. Unlike the 2014 'Maleficent' there is no redeeming villain act in 'Cruella', neither is there a positive message (or any clear one at all for that matter) in the film. Add to that some repetitive and dragging scenes, only kept together by flashy visuals and music. I am unsure this is a movie you want to show to your kids, and for adults it can be rather dull.
Most problematic is the soundtrack. First of all, the choice for a focus on rock & roll and especially punk music is very complementary with the themes in the movie (although the whole status/fashion part of that is contradictory.) However, the songs often feel very forced and only superficially connected to what is happening on screen. Secondly, the movie is simply to family friendly to really be able to carry any sort of punk theme. The mix with Disco and R&B was a mystery to me, especially when 'Car Wash' played i was totally taken out of the movie. There is also an overload of well known songs to be recognized by the audience, not contributing much to the film.
Absolutely the most positive part in this film is the acting. Emma Thompson is impressive and steals the show in this movie. Even though Emma Stone performs great, Thompson kind of outshines her most of the time. Emma Stone is a great actress though, and she does notably well here too. Especially noteworthy is Emma Stone her use of voice. She clearly studied the original voice actor for Cruella wel, and her use and tone of voice is done very accurately and fitting.
Besides the acting and some nice visuals every now and then there is not much value in this movie to put your time in. An overly long runtime, unclear or poor message and a soundtrack that does not do more than a good Spotify playlist drag down the movie as a whole. If you want to see Emma (any of them) shine, it can be worth the watch though.
With all the great reviews I suspected a hidden jewel, and it kinda was. However it annoyed me a lot.
Especially the dialog was extremely hectic and kind of retarded in the first 30 minutes. It got a bit better after that, but never really good. The actions and decisions were of people that just did not think, something that doesn't fit in a movie with a smart setting like multiverses. imho it only fits with comedy and some exceptions here and there, but that's just me.
One of the flaws that showed itself a couple of times was the time flow. Time is not really consequent throughout the whole movie. In 1 scene someone drinks up a bottle of wine within a minute, and on a few occasions people were gone for a longer period of time (10-20min) while in the house itself no more than 5 minutes were passed at best. This could be explained by the major plot twist in the end, but it would be nice if there were made 1 or 2 remarks about it if that was the case.
The movie is also not giving the viewer time to make their own construction of the situation but making a few emotional scenes right after an info-dump and repeating this process.
And when the characters finally start to understand how complex the situation could be, they decide to pop open the alcohol and get wasted.... seriously?
It brings the movie to a dramatic impasse that is completely unnecessarily and just slows down the mystery.
Luckily the movie manages to get some points in after that. More focusing on story development, having some very interesting plot twists and using the mystery to its benefit in stead of for the drama.
Those last 15 minutes are a good home run, and the movie sets up a completely other pace and setting. Suddenly moving from a group of people with no clue what's going on, to one main character with an objective.
Maybe they should've done this from the beginning to make it more interesting. The girl (Emily?) who took on this role was from the beginning one of the few actors I did not have many complains about, and was doing a good job.
Usually I am a big fan of the 'quantum multiverse' theory worked into a movie, and the concept in this one is very nicely done. But even though they tried (and to be fair the creators have a good grasp on the subject) it kinda failed with the overly dramatic setting and insulting the viewer by letting characters make dumb decisions.
Since it is a low budget movie, I decided not to be too harsh on the rating itself (it really is a movie that can match itself with the high budget ones) and I definitely would upvote for a remake with some better scriptwriting for dialog and some actions. Because I think that this flick could be even better.
In 'The French Dispatch' director Wes Anderson goes all out with his characteristic aesthetic, beautiful visuals, use of colour and attention to detail. The music is great, fantastic even at times. There are more top actors than you could find at an average Oscars party. And visually most of shots are works of art all by them self. It is rather unfortunate that Wes his attention to detail do not translate to a more coherent story as a whole, holding the movie back.
'The French Dispatch' contains three separate stories, only trivially connected by a fourth overarching story about a newspaper and its journalists (based on the origins of a real newspaper.) On their own, each story is serviceable, but unfortunately the guiding story is lacking enough substance to make it work as a whole. The at times rather dense dialogue, riddled with puns and metaphors, also do not help with avoiding confusion. Especially for the average cinema visitor. However, the jokes and puns are often positively unexpected and with a great show of comedic timing, even during otherwise non comedic scenes. And this is without having to resort to the type of subversive humor we so often see nowadays in blockbuster films.
The three stories on their own, especially the rather quirky first one about the convicted murderer, are all interesting and fun enough to make the viewer invested. And although each story is not likely to be strong enough in its current form to carry a whole film, I think they could have benefited from some more time. To give the characters some more and/or better introduction. It would also have the benefit of seeing some more from all the fantastic actors.
I would recommend to watch this movie at (a somewhat larger screen) at home, where you have the option to rewind. That way it is also possible to appreciate the many details in many shots and scenes.
With every movie Wes improves his meticulous and almost obsessive attention to detail in every shot. Considering the visuals; In 'The French Dispatch' he once again trumps every movie Wes Anderson has made before, including the well received 'Budapest Hotel' and his critically acclaimed stop motion films 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' and 'Isle Of Dogs'. Of course there is an ample amount of his characteristic centered camera work, straight angle moving and panning, and the painting-like sets in almost every shot. He plays with aspect ratio and switches between colour and black and white for significant portions of the movie. And there is even a fully (drawn) animated section, which is a lot of fun.
If a movie was only visuals, this one would have been rated a 10/10.
I absolutely enjoyed the music and music timing in this. Composer Alexandre Desplat (who often composed for Wes Anderson his films) made a score that was often subtle, while still reinforcing the atmosphere of the movie and the scene. I also noticed some parts where video and audio were carefully timed to match one another. On a few occasions the music felt like a temporary extra character in the scene, leading the atmosphere instead of only enforcing it, and I found myself actively appreciating it more than I usually do when watching a film.
With all the actors involved, and the limited time they are given, it is difficult to properly discuss acting as a whole. There are so many fantastic actors in this, but the lack of screentime for each of them makes none of them award worthy. I have to mention Benicio del Toro for his acting though. With his menacing performance he outshines most of the other actors. And that is with a cast like this very difficult to do.
Overall I enjoyed this movie a lot, but even though I would like to recommend it, it is difficult to recommend to most people except for people already familiar with Wes Anderson his work. It might be not accessible enough for the average person, with the separate stories and visual style. While for a film fan the story issues can be problematic. Its shortcomings are especially unfortunate, because it likely will be a cause for less people to watch it.
An out of the box character driven movie with amazing performances all over. The movie is carried by the philosophical debate about (the hypocrisy of) how society is raising and viewing kids, so for the ones not interested in some deeper themes this movie will fall flat or could even be misunderstood. It is not so much a critique on society as it is thought provoking, and you might end up somewhere in the middle of the two positions of the argument. You could argue both against and in favour of the main character (played by the always amazing Viggo Mortensen) where every character in this movie has been written and portrayed as realistic as they can be.
At its core the movie is about parenting, education and the way society places itself superior to the outcast, and how the outcast always has to fight these conformist systems. Since (western) education and way of life has almost become a religion in itself, it isn't easy to live in (or raise your kids in) when you disagree. Something this movie illustrates the best in its more extreme moments.
Its runtime is a bit longer than you'd think necessary, however the slow pacing of the movie makes room for the rather big cast to breathe a little and not hastily skip over the decision points or thought process of the characters. It rotates intense emotional moments with moments of light heartedness and world building. This makes time for actually taking the audience along with the thoughts of the people that have the most development.
Oh and the cinematography is surprisingly well done too. I found myself both laughing and almost tearing up in 1 single shot. The emotions are very well captured and the use of light, costumes and props is exceptional.
The end really left me wondering if the kids could fly out and become these promising people their parents set them out to be, but something tells me that it won't be that simple.
"In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him."
Ender's Game is a movie with many flaws, but many qualities as well. Keep in mind that it is hard to just categorize it as a good or bad movie because of that.
No real spoilers ahead.
Story:
Like someone pointed out here before me, the reason why kids are necessary and why that's humanities only hope is left completely unexplained. The lack of other commanders, besides the one in training school, is pretty odd to say the least as well. In 50 years not 1 trainee from the academy passed the test. So what happened to all those failed kids? Especially the ones that did get to the final test. They know a secret that cannot be known to society (about the hero commander.)
There was no real character development in this movie at all except for the main character, and his development was very thin. The 2 friends he made do not have much in common with him, nor do they have any reason to like him. Especially the girl, since she is in a winning team for a while. After Ender's 'problem' with the Salamander leader, he feels bad about it. But as soon this part is over he never seems to look back at it or takes any lesson from it.
On the brightside, the massive plottwist in the end was surprising. After watching a movie with a rather unsurprising (but not boring) story development, I did not expect that. They could've singled out the emotional/psychological aspect after this part a bit more to make up for some lacking character development earlier.
Visuals:
Special Effects were lovely. A real sci-fi feel with great spacey environments that didn't feel unrealistic or cheap. The funniest thing was how they could've had computer games with about the same graphics we have now :P
I really loved how they did the battle scenes between plains and fighters, both in air as in space. You really got sucked into the battle field, and lost the feeling you were watching at a screen like happens so often with big battle scenes with lots of SFX.
Music:
This has to be adressed. I think this was probably the best part about this movie. Steve Jablonksy was the one who composed it. He also composed the music for the game Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, where he surprisingly managed to not dissapoint after stopping Frank Klepacki's monopoly for the franchise. And that's while Klepacki set the stakes very high for him. And in mainstream modern movies he is probably best known for doing some music for the Transformer movies, too bad those movies suck too much.
He did an amazing job on the score for Ender's Game. Bombastic, classical and majestic music that made every scene way bigger and impressive. Something you could easily listen to and enjoy without looking to the film, but just play really loud on your speakers.
Acting:
This is always something that falls a bit short when kids are the main characters in a movie. Remember the golden rule: Never work with children or pets when you are making a movie.
Not that it was bad, I was actually positively surprised with the acting job most of the younger characters delivered. The worst acting came from the adults xD But even so, the acting was not something award-worthy. Just don't expect big personal acting extravaganzas and you will be just fine.
Enjoyment/Overall:
I really had a lot of fun watching this movie, therefore the end(er) ordeal from me falls into the category good movie. It has enough speed, nice visuals, great music and it is just fun to watch.
This small, incomplete review holds no real spoilers.
Jennifer Lawrence turned up the acting switch a notch. Might be her best performance till date overshadowing 'winter's bone' while showing her great talent and potential of her becoming a movie superstar (if she isn't already bc of her internet popularity and looks.)
This part was more balanced as the last movie, and sets the emotional trigger on sharp for the finale next year.
Again a compliment to Elizabeth Banks who captures the role of Effie amazingly well. Even though she originally wasn't supposed to be on screen until the finale, the creators and writer Suzanne Collins decided to let her replace Plutarch's assistent so she could be in this movie, which was a wise decision imho to use a familiar face in stead of a unknown side character.
I was a bit disappointed about the lack of influence of Natalie Dormer, but we might have to wait for the last movie for that to happen.
Sidenote: It is harder to find a movie without Julianne Moore nowadays, than one with her lol.
There is a lot of conversation, the biggest part due to this being the politics part in the story. This is a big part of stories base after all, and is important in its message.
I really was surprised they used the 'Hanging tree' song in the movie, I kinda suspected they would skip it, and it was a great surprise and a good decision the didn't. It has a lot of importance for Katniss, since it depicts the struggle of the districts against the capitol, and her relationship with her family (mainly her dad) and later with Peeta.
Lawrence is definitely not a singer though, she doesn't have the voice for it hehe. Good thing they have computers nowadays.
Depending on how part 2 will turn out, I think they made a good choice in splitting the movie in two, even though it is probably done just for the cash and not for storytelling.
Pretty disappointing and crappy movie.
I suspected a casual and fun movie with this one, maybe with some puzzles and an interesting premise. However the movie disappointed from the start.
For a adaptation from a book I sure hope this was a bad one. You get thrown into the middle of a stoy where suddenly all kinds of stuff happens. I hope this wasn't the case in the original work, because it is one of the major flaws of this movie, and could be explained as the cause of many of its other faults.
The acting was luckily pretty ok, but many of the characters don't add to the story at all and are just filling up empty screen. The sound was to cry off as well. Soundtrack was ok, but many scenes had no music and felt like a soap because of it.
I am all for being creative with sound, but this was just done badly.
Since I won't bore you with pages of irrelevant texts, like the movie does, i will just make a list of the cons and pros.
Cons:
- Paced way too fast
- No build up for a climax (the film was more of a constant climax actually)
- Not getting time to get acquainted with the characters, therefore not caring about there faith.
- Very little character development, except maybe for Gally (Will Poulter)
- Stating many things as impossible without many explanation
- Revealing the endgame in the first act of the movie with a flashback/memory which makes the whole movie unnecessary,
- Also making the whole story as predictable as a Japanese train schedule.
- Inappropriate absent of sound
- Too much unimportant characters
- Did we really need another Hunger Games movie?
- etc.
Pros:
- Nice environment
- Funny but cool looking cyborg creatures
- Doesn't need many attention to follow, so you can check your twitter or facebook feed in the meantime.
This is 'Primer' for dummies.
The movie frustrated me from time to time because of massive plot holes and bad writing. The idea is challenging, and complex enough to have fun with, and not too complex to get lost in. However too many things did not add up.
For such smart kids they sure were reckless and rushed everything as if they were for the first time in a chemistry class. Every guy who has even the slightest idea of timetravel knows that messing with stuff in the past is going to get you in trouble (butterfly effect) and if you are going to do something you have to plan it out carefully.
There are also multiple occasions when they travel back in time for a 2nd time to the same time and place, but do not meet their 'earlier' time traveling selfs there. This was especially awkward with the kiss scene. Arguably the most important scene of the movie. Even if the device somehow canceled out earlier jumps to the same time, they didn't have to interfere but just had to jump and wait.
For the story it might have been much more interesting if they didn't focus so much on the main actor during the final act of the movie and prevent such a boring cliched ending.
There is more, but lets leave it with this
There is 1 interesting detail in the ending though; the papers David throws in the garbage bin after the talk with his father date 2025. I wonder what that implies....
Still, there are way worse movies out there.
Edit: there is another thing I really liked about the movie btw. It used a track by Mark Sixma. :D
It is hard not to compare the 2021 Snyder's Cut to the 2017 release, which was generally perceived as a messy film due to its problems during production. There is definitely more coherence and structure in this version, with less plot holes and more time for the characters to breathe (not in last place because of the significantly increased -doubled- run time.) However, in many moments it is clear the movie has been edited together from incomplete and/or unfinished material. This is especially noticeable in several of the (many) CGI scenes, which look outdated and unpolished. It makes (some of) the choices made in the 2017 version more understandable, even though it does not make them any better. The hated reshoots that ended up in the 2017 version were clearly not unnecessary, just the execution was poor.
Light Spoilers ahead (marked.)
The antagonist is clearly one of the main improvements. Steppenwolf is relatively well fleshed out, and no longer a completely forgettable generic bad guy (and I thought his costume looked awesome! No idea why that was changed in the earlier version.) It remains a problem that he is just a henchman, and the big bad guy boss (Darkseid) plays no real role in the story. Darkseid appearance has not much added value because of that. It adds significantly to the antagonist motivation, but his appearance is mostly used to make way for a next movie.
We also spend more time on Cyborg and his character, which is deserving and rewarding and makes him a more interesting character to watch.
The dynamic within the team is also much more balanced, with less awkward forced moments.
That being said, the main focus clearly never was the characters themselves, which is not unusual for a blockbuster (superhero) movie. There are scenes that feel out of place because of sudden shifts of tone and focus. Also, several events, plot lines and choices or alternatives are never explored or given a pay off.
There are several setups that are never paid off, especially with the introduction of additional characters. This pads the runtime unnecessarily and often makes the movie feel like a set up for later movies (which will probably never see the light of day.) Secondly, their are so many endings, it could compete with LOTR's Return of The King for most endings in a major film release, and unlike RotK, it is not to finish up those aforementioned loose ends, but rather to set up new plots.
Of course this has to be mentioned. The choice for 4:3 ratio has been done for creative reasons, and it has already caused division among the viewers. Their are many shots where the 4:3 ratio is exceptionally impressive, and it is justifies the choice for that aspect ratio. However, in just as many scenes the lack of widescreen makes the experience underwhelming. This is (logically) mostly the case with wideshots and the big battles. When the ever present but lacking CGI meets those wideshot angles, this negative effect is even more increased, and it made me feel like watching an episode of Friends or other old television show.
In conclusion, the chosen aspect ratio has both its merits and demerits. The difference between 4:3 and Widescreen is not impossible to overcome to use in 1 film, but it is significant which makes it tricky to naturally switch between them. The choice to stay dedicated to an unchanging Ratio is logical.
This is an average but fun epic superhero movie that is enjoyable to watch if you have the time and patience for it. The movie is split into several distinct sections, with headers, so it is possible to watch it as a mini-series. It does not rise to the heights of Infinity War, but it also does not steep as low as Suicide Squad.
It's funny how the actor called Finn does not play the part of Finn in this film. :P
All kidding aside, this was a highly addictive film that surprised me a lot. When I jumped in I expected a bad plot based on outrages decision making and nonsense. And even though there are still points of critique in that matter left, overall this does not affect the film in a way it aggravates the viewer.
The plot setup is basic but not clichéd, and from there on it uses every scene carefully to set up a plot with some unexpected twists. You can see the creators jumped in this project and seemingly were dedicated to what they were creating. Since (almost) every scene has it's value and is worked out very detailed (IMDB only has 1 goof on the movie so far. Yes it is an indie movie, so it won't have as much engagement as others, but still.)
Any plot that has to do with time travel and the like is hard to set up without having paradoxes, and there are few films who manage to handle them correctly. This one isn't perfect, but it does a nice job in keeping them very limited.
The first thing that got me thrilled was the music used in the movie. I am already a big fan of electronic music, but it is hard to use in film since it is more often than not disruptive in its presence. Not here, it balances some hard-trance scenes with more subtle spheric suspension building sounds. It backs the claustrophobic experience of the small set, and magnifies the surrealism of science fiction in a sublime way.
As the film progresses you get sucked in more and more into the story, especially after the 2nd act where the character development of the main persona is getting really interesting. This 3rd part of the film is by far the best part, with the biggest twists and captivating ordeals the characters have to face. I won't say much about the ending to prevent spoilers, but it left me hungry for a sequel, which will most likely never come. I am still not sure if that feeling was a good or bad thing.
I will be rating it at a 7(+) for now, but I am going to watch it a second time, because it is definitely worth it.
The 3h sit was a long one. Even though it wasn't the movie I was expecting it did not feel like a waste of time at all.
Even with a 3h film, there are still questions left to be answered. The movies maintains a slow pace overall, but fast forwards a few times to not make the movie too boring. This results in some characters getting rushed out of the story, and some not having much impact. The ending is implied as well, but I am very happy with it and wouldn't suggest changing it. It is most of all a coming of age story with some slice-of-life elements, and it is way too easy to fall for the clichés hiding in those genres. And they hardly did.
They could've sacrificed some unnecessary (long) scenes, but I doubt it would be the same film without them. It gives the movie a unique pace in which you don't really want them to hury up with the story, and just 'live in the now' with Adele (not particularly refering to the sex scenes.)
Besides the long and graphic sex scenes, which this movie will probably and sadly be most rememberd for, there are a multitude of shots and transitions that really hit me. The acting is of a very high quality too. They even threw in a lot of philosophy but were smart to make the main character not care for it (or understand it.) This prevents a pretentiousness without losing such material.
After all a very intriguing movie.
"Be careful what you wish for, cause you just might get it."
'Transcendence' is a science fiction movie about Artificial Intelligence with some classic themes in it. After a tragic event someone is brought back to life by copying his mind to a (quantum)computer. When the program spins out of control, it is up to the heroes of the story to stop the machine from destroying humankind.
Story
So far so good. A basic AI story with all kinds of possibilities, and this is where they went wrong. It looks like they could not really decide which theme(s) they really wanted to go with, so almost every theme is hinted at: Self-consciousness, Technology as a life form, is a machine able to Love, is the world holistic or based on reductionism, Could a machine ever overpower us, post apocalyptic world, struggle of morality, devotion and faith et cetera. None of these themes gets the proper time to get deepened out, so we end up with a movie with a lot of unsatisfying development.
Secondly, the first scene of the movie already betrays the end of the movie, which was a very bad decision, because it took out all the suspense from the movie and made you aware of the ending from the beginning.
Some plot holes which made me think the creators think I am dumb, but in the end made me think they are dumb:
1. I thought it was weird the 'virus' had to be uploaded by 'the wife' Evelyn, since it was basically working like an antidote (a bit weak imho) and since the AI's main goal was to "improve" everyone, not kill them, dosing people with the virus would make them invulnerable for hostile takeovers.
2. Also, the main power source of the AI was his solar park. Even though he operated on the complete Internet and everything connected to it, including the power grid itself (which is literally named in the movie.) So shutting down that solar park should not have any effect on him at all!
Characters
Besides a few 'errors in 'judgment', the cast is overall pretty good and does a nice job. Nobody will probably win an award for this movie and some characters are so anonymous I cannot even remember their characters name just after watching the movie (I seriously had to look this example up: Paul Bettany as Max Walters.)
Visuals/Music
The music in the movie was pretty decent. Nothing special, just like the movie in it's whole, but not bad either. Visuals were neat, but no megalomania was added, so you won't really be able to enjoy big massive visual spectacles on the screen. But this is not a film for that anyway.
Overall/Enjoyment
In contrary to the many negative points I wrote down, it is not bad of a movie at all. It does not reach classic heights or big majestic scenes, but you will be interested in it as long as you like the AI kind of Science Fiction. I especially liked how the movies seems to have a bit of a slower pace than is the standard nowadays, which I can appreciate.
May the spoiler be always in your favour (this review contains spoilers.)
A great ending has come to the legendary hunger games series. A most welcome ending because we now finally will discover how the creators handled the death of Prim and the bittersweet ending of the book. Those were the two parts of this film I was curious about the most. My judgement is a 50/50 split between praise and expected disappointment.
After 3 movies and covering 2,5 book we have arrived at the endgame. The rebellion is on the capitols doorstep, and the climax of the story has arrived. During this build up there was a decent lack of focus on Katniss her sister Prim (as I mentioned in an earlier hunger games review too.) The importance Prim has to Katniss is shown a few times, but she did not get the appropriate attention for the average watcher to accept and understand that. Therefore the 'big explosion' didn't hit me as hard as it should have (and it didn't look like it hit many of the rest of the audience in the cinema.) But this was an expected point of criticism, and the actual execution of the big scene was done fairly well and a visual treat.
They did left the ending completely intact, with the harsh reality of a post traumatic stress syndrome after a war and poking around in someone's brain. It is an emotionally, nerve-racking but realistic ending, and I loved the books for it. I am thankful the writers had the gut to not change it.
Performance
Performances are once again fabulous. Effie (Elizabeth Banks) her role was mostly played out, so we sadly didn't get to see much of her. Neither did we of Haymitch (Woody Harrelson.) But it wouldn't be the Hunger Games without some of the chart emotional outburst by Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence.) She proves to the world that her fellow generation actresses are miles away from her level of performance. I even dare to say she is the best we've got currently have in all of Hollywood.
Donald Sutherland finally steps it up as president Snow and leaves the franchise with a great final act, giving the evil sceptre to the ever anticipating Coin (Julianne Moore) whome I have yet to see doing a weak performance. Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and Gale (Liam Hemsworth) are just as great as they always were, even though we do not see enough of Gale to give his character a proper development. They just managed to do enough. Jena Malone as Johanna Mason was a delight, even though fairly irrelevant. The acts of Natalie Dromer as Cressida and the rest of the camera crew & squat underwent the same faith: Fairly irrelevant, but decent nonetheless. Most of the soldiers deaths were less shocking due to their lack of screen time, but there simply isn't enough time to set there character up in this stage of the story, so it couldn't be handled any other way.
Story
The story couldn't have been more relevant to current times. With a massive overlap with the refugees in Europe, the war in Syria and the political pre-election games in the USA, the accidental timing of the movie is perfect. Sometimes it felt like I was watching a speech they took right out of Donald Trump his program, used images from actual war zones and this made it frighteningly applicable to reality for me. The whole story is a fair warning to the current world situation, and one that shouldn't be taken lightly.
Having said that, the script did drop some stitches. Especially with the pacing. The middle part of the movie is going from one event to another lacking some proper motivation besides getting to the end of the movie. It did deepen the drama and gave room for great action scenes, but they had to sacrifice the strategic coherence we saw in the last film. It results in an ending that became fairly predictable, and a feeling that some (major) events were rushed (a weird feeling when you have over 9 hours of film in total.) Using shots during the execution scene, where Snow and Coin are in the same line of sight on multiple occasions, could have been handled differently too. I guess only a few people were surprised by the arrow's direction.
Visual & Music
I can be brief about this, it was phenomenal. The music was a tad less interesting than in the former movies, but still greatly timed and chosen. CGI and SFX was stunning. I was never a big fan of the the underground part, but the mutts were done amazingly well with so much detail and wrath it rightuously felt absolutely threatening. As they truely are one of the capitols most deadly weapons. Even though I knew something would happen in seconds, I still jumped by surprise a few times.
Overall
After all it is a movie with many perks and some tiny flaws that are very understandable. A worthy ending to one of the most important series of its genre.
Enjoyable movie that does not overstays it's welcome.
I recognized the story while watching (maybe I saw the National Geographic episode that was dedicated to this, or through some YouTube channel) and I felt like it was done well without getting too unfaithful to the original story (I have not done my research on this though, so don't take me word on it.)
The aim was clearly to go for a more realistic experience, and try not to overly sensationalize the plot or visuals. And at times the movies leans more toward a (visually more darker) 'The Great Escape' rather than a 'Shawshank Redemption'. Although 'Escape From Pretoria' does not reach the heights of either of those aforementioned prison classics, the movie is worth the watch and can stand on it's own well enough.
PS. I had no issue with the 'Harry Potter effect' that is mentioned in some of the other comments. I think the reason for that might be that it has been a while since I saw any of the HP films, while at the same time I saw several other movies of Radcliffe. To the others I would recommend to try watch him in some of his totally different roles, like the absurd 'Swiss Army Man' and the more recent 'Guns Akimbo'. The humour might be a bit odd, so I can't give any guarantee you like it. Or you can try 'Imperium'. I did not see that one, but it had decent reviews and is a lot more serious.
'The circle' aims high, manages to perform well until about halfway, then it crashes in a rather lackluster and unresolved ending.
I did not know much about this movie before going in, except for it having a stellar cast with Tom Hanks, Emma Watson, Karen Gillan (someone I always like seeing), Bill Paxton and Patton Oswalt. After watching the movie I was very surprised by discovering the utter trash reviews it got from both critics and fans. I can see its flaws, but I do not agree this amount of low-balling is something the movie deserves in my humble opinion.
Warning: Light spoilers ahead. (Heavy spoilers are hidden.)
Let's start at the beginning; Mae (played by Emma Watson) is a 20-something girl living somewhere in the near future in the San Fransisco area. She has a dead-end job at a customer service company, and she isn't happy. Her life goes nowhere, and she feels bad for not being able to help her dad, who suffers from MS. The story kick starts when her friend sets her up for an interview with a high-profile tech company. From this point onwards things start to snowball, and Mae gets pulled deeper and deeper into her work until she becomes like a social media, pop star-like, mascot for the company.
'The circle' follows a conventional third person storytelling with 3 tightly structured acts. It is based on the book with the same name written by Dave Eggers. The story revolves around a fictional company called 'The circle' which is an obvious possible future mirror of Apple, but can also represent Google, Facebook, Samsung, Amazon or other tech giants we know today. The main dilemma is about the discussion of privacy vs. transparency, a question notably relevant in today's world concerning tech companies and public surveillance. It also touches upon the value of friendship, family, self confidence and a late coming-of-age story of a 20-something year old.
The initial set up is done well, but nothing special. We get introduced to the main character her life; her family, most important friends, her first days at 'the circle' and its community. The first signs of trouble arrive when Mae is confronted by not having set up her social media profile at the company after a week of being there. After this the stakes slowly get higher and higher, something that is subtly (but a bit too obviously) paced. The most intriguing thing that the movie does is taking that initial dilemma, and move the line that needs to be crossed slightly further every time. It reminded me a bit of the 1981 film 'The Wave' which was based on a real life experiment by a teacher in Germany. A teacher showed the dangers of populism and fascism by slowly setting a more extreme boundary, so he avoided a 'shock effect' and the people (students) kept following him. The difference is that the jumps are sometimes a bit too big in 'The Circle'. It looks like the movie wants to make you think about the questions it asks its characters more than giving an in-world experience. My guess is that this is why the movie bombed with both critics and audience.
This also goes for the ending; when Mae turns the tables on the bosses of the company (played by Tom Hanks and Patton Oswalt) it is unclear if she wants to continue the direction the company is heading in and even widen it, or is actually out on stopping it but knows it is already too late and the end result will be inevitable at this point. Again I think the movie rather wants to hold up a mirror to our current society and not make a finished product with all the answers. Even though I sympathise with this, it is not executed well enough and the ending might be either too ambiguous or not ambiguous enough with Mae sitting in her kajak surrounded by drones. Could this be a result from her choice? Or was it an inevitable thing?
The actors portraying the main characters are performing ok overall. Nobody really gave a bad performance, but there were no little moments where they actually shine either. The chemistry between characters was lacking sometimes because of clunky dialogue, most notably the chemistry between Mae (Emma Watson) and Annie (Karen Gillan) was rather lacking, and it made the toilet scene rather dull. Also the public fight between Mae and Mercer (Ellar Coltrane) was a bit cringy and lacked common sense. The best scenes were in the beginning of the movie, with Mae seeing her dad (played by Bill Paxton) having problems and Mae being thankful for Annie helping her and her parents. The characters and performances shined best on itself, with Karen Gillan being the highlight in the non-verbal acting.
The movie has a comforting use of lightning, and there are some beautiful set pieces and location shots and/or photography. It sets a consistent colour palet and tone for its settings, which is usually agreeing with a positive Silicon valley kind of mentality. This contrasts the dark undertone the movie has, and to me that was something I really enjoyed. It mimics reality where the positivity of technology often outshines (or simply ignores) the risks. Also the implementation of the technology was rather seamless. It was obviously there, but it was never too surreal or too much. Music was rather minimalistic and fitting, but except for a handful of scenes never more than just some complimentary background music.
Even though this movie has many flaws, I enjoyed watching it thoroughly. It hinges between a documentary of social decay and a satire comedy drama. Even though it fails to be any of those perfectly, it does well as a society commentary and only drops the ball in being a bit too obvious and never delivering on it's hinted solution.
I was very intrigued by one of the comments Mae received, which stated "No one at the circle has kids." This insinuated that the circle has no future, and even though the questions this movie asks are relevant, I doubt this movie will stay relevant for very long considering its bad reception.
According to this film a Leo is destined to do great things. What they actually mean is you need saving all the time.
I had very high hopes for this movie, but had to adjust them after all the bad reviews and low rating it received. After all it was not as bad as they made it out to be, but definitely not the masterpiece I was hoping for.
To start of with the movie's biggest flaw; The story is as random as it can get. Not only did they fail to set up a good premise (Cinderella in space) but even the arcs have as little connection as possible.
We have a leading cast consisting of a 'renegade' soldier and a damsel in distress that doesn't seem to be able to love anyone until she literally gets swept of her feet by the prince in shining boots. Of course they need an enemy, so the villain is a selfish royalty with a batman-voice that uses the whole universe for its own gain and profit. Actually, he isn't the only one. Everyone else in the universe who can does. And those who cannot, accept it as a fact of life. So why is he a villain again? Oh right, he is the one who is currently threatening earth...
And then there are the sister and brother of the villain who get entangled in the story, although they have no influence on the outcome of the story at all and only prolong it.
Jupiter (Mila Kunis) needs to protect her family and the earth all the while barely making any decisions by herself (besides wanting to go back home scrubbing a toilet.) Even when she does make a decision, it gets her into trouble. It's as if she wants to create a situation where her prince is coming to save her (from the altar and the worst marriage in history of spacetime and movie clichés.)
Through most of the movie she has no idea what is going on, and character development is thin as ice. The same goes for most the other characters.
Some comedic relieve is put in with an (extensive) joke about bureaucrats with our 'heroes' just standing by while some robot goes from one department to another. As well as a spaceship leaving a crop circle in a not so subtle way while lifting off. Really, who wants to see those things?
Also: Why was Channing Tatum the only guy with a shield (or flying boots) in the whole universe? And why does he run through a cornfield, while he can much easier fly over it (and how did he survive the journey through space right after that when he was outside the ship?)
Well, at least they used a decent excuse for a massive destruction of an earth-bound city in a movie.
The cast was a variable success. This might be the first flick in which Sean Bean doesn't get killed off prematurely :P
Most of the actors did what they could with what they got and Eddie Redmayne (playing the villain) probably got the best out of it. He created a pretty convincing bad guy with the moods of royal spoiled kid.
Mila Kunis did a good job on making 'Cinderella' likable and convincing. it is nice to see her do a Science Fiction flick, and I would love to see her do more in the future (hopefully with a more profound role.)
The brother Titus and sister Kalique (Douglas Booth and Tuppence Middleton resp.) were already pretty irrelevant for the story, but managed to erase themself from memory even more easily by overacting their roles. So they ended up more as eye-candy than anything else.
I am saving Channing Tatum (Cain 'Prince flying boots' Wise) for last. As an action hero he did not disappoint. He also handled the more romantic scenes with the right subtlety even though he and Kunis did not seem to really feel each other.
The only point that was constantly in my mind was: "Why didn't they get Justin Timberlake for his part?" He has proven himself to be a good actor a long time a go (also in Sci-Fi with 'In Time') and even starred with Mila Kunis in 'Friends with benefits' where they showed to have a great chemistry together. It is not that Tatum did a bad job, but Timberlake might have done a better job at getting that connection with Kunis, which frankly was underwhelming.
This is where the movie gets its most points for. It is a space opera after all and the creators of 'The Matrixx' and 'Cloud Atlas' have a niche with trying to do unique things with the action and mood of a movie.
Some extra-slow bullet time is thrown in and (very) fast action with ships spinning around each other which was a real enjoyment.
Somehow the action scenes (like the one named before) are a bit too fast paced though. It goes so fast and gets so chaotic from time to time that it is really hard to follow what is going on and/or to enjoy it thoroughly.
As a space opera it did its job with throwing in a lot of extraterrestrial beings (including the famous area51 big heads) and nice designed spaceships. The make-up and CGI of some of the recurring creatures were extremely detailed and so great to look at it didn't feel fake at all. In comparison; LOTR's Gollem looks like a ship of the 70s game 'Space Invaders' next to them.
The visuals of Jupiter, Earth and other planets are astonishing (way better than 'Interstellar' for example) and so are the clouds on Jupiter itself and views of the different cities.
A lot of the long shots of cities and spaceships are a bit cut short and just too distant though, which was a shame since they could've used those moments more so the viewer could enjoy the view and take in the atmosphere. This made the movie feel less 'in your face' and majestic (remember the openings scene of 'Star Wars?)
With a bad plot, good visuals and an average cast 'Jupiter Ascending' makes for a nice looking movie that can be seriously fun to watch, but nothing as special as it promised to be. It has many flaws and downsides but in my opinion the critique and bad ratings are worse than the movie is set out to be. This is probably mostly because of the high expectations the movie had before release. It still is quite ridiculous though.
'Raya and the Last Dragon' is a story that mirrors reality and some of the problems we face currently. It brings a positive story about coming together in a time of turmoil and polarization, in the face of a (not so subtle real world metaphor) imminent threat. With the best technical visuals an animated movie can probably bring us today, likeable characters and a good balance between serious and lighter tones, this is a perfect movie to watch with your kids or just alone on a big screen.
'Raya and the Last Dragon' is once again a new frontier in (3D) animated film. The absolutely stunning animation is rich in color and with a lot of attention to detail. The lightning, water, facial expressions and movements are of a level rarely seen before. Disney once again proves to be at the utmost forefront of technical capabilities in (3D) animated film.
One of the most noticeable issues in the movie is the editing. Pacing and tone are never actually bad, but events happen fairly quickly one after another, which makes the journey not feel like much of a challenge to overcome. There are also some tonal issues between moments when the dragon is on screen, and the main characters conflict. Considering the primary focus group for Disney is kids, this is not something I would call as too problematic.
The cutting is too fast for my taste though. A bit more time to be able appreciate the beautiful shots of landscapes or other scenes would have been nice. And where the editing mostly starts to fall apart is when fast paced scenes (like fighting scenes) happen. The cutting is too often and too fast, which can trigger a feeling of dizziness at times.
Again, as a movie primarily aimed at kids, I do not expect depths to the likes of 'Mulholland Drive', 'Se7en' or even 'Spirited Away', so the following is not a major complaint. The characters are decent, sometimes original, and well rounded, world building is done well (although I personally thought the exposition could have been a bit better integrated) and the dialogue does not feel forced and has a good flow.
At the end of the movie I do feel the characters and story are a bit lacking in depth. I think that even without making the characters or story more complicated, this could have been improved by giving a but more time for the characters (and viewer) to grasp the situation they are in. To let them contemplate the situation, and give them some time to breath.
Because of the clear message the movie is giving off, the story is fairly predictable. And even while the message of trust can be a bit in your face at times, this does not detract of the enjoyment I had while watching.
With beautiful animation, good world building, a nice sounding score and rather original characters and the general fast pace, this is a movie that is a feast to watch (especially with kids.) The decent but predictable story is good enough to carry it's message properly, without it getting annoying. Overall 'Raya and the Last Dragon' is a good new addition to the Disney animated movie collection.
Surprisingly good movie, with an extremely low budget.
In this fictional documentary we start of with the surprising news humankind won an alien invasion and survived for a change. In the almost 90 minutes that follow we see the soldiers of a military outpost base battling the remaining aliens in the region and a unique sci-fi war story.
Although this movie wouldn't be considered 'great' by many, it is not as bad as its ratings do make believe. The visuals are pretty nice, but not overdone, the story is surprising at points, and directing choices are somewhat unique.
This makes the whole movie feel very realistic. The Direct Cinema technique (making use of hand-held cameras and the cameraman being a part of the story) amplifies this heavily. The low budget doesn't hurt its realism either.
Having such a low budget does has its downside. The aliens are drawn into the movie pretty late, they couldn't fix the fact that some scenes do feel like being on a set and some of the dialogue and text is a bit corny. The writers even do a (misfired) wink to the Afganistan war. That kind of political symbolism is painfully misplaced in a movie with an overdone amount of macho men.
And even though they do an elaborate effort to make you familiar with the mediocre cast, they don't really stick for the most part. The General might be an exception on this.
However, the aliens do look really badass and so do most of the props used by them and the human props are neat too. The action scenes are solid as well, with a lot of explosions (don't worry, it is not Michael Bay-like) and changing environments.
One of the biggest plot problems is probably on how the soldiers managed to advance, enter and destroy the (most important) base of the aliens with less firepower and more resistance than they had to endure at their own base, but they lost that. Even though they were 1 man down. I have to say they do lose more men at the alien base.
The second problem is the lack of answers the movie provides. You are left wondering why the 'heavy' want to conquer the earth, and they are really teasing you with the 'metal rain' and after-the credits scene they provide us with.
Maybe they hope on a sequel, with a bigger budget. And to be honest, even with all the bad points this movie has, I am all for it.
"Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb, we are bound to others."
This was a much anticipated movie for me, so I really wanted to give it a proper sit down and give it my full attention. It turned out it needed it too. The movie falls into the category 'hella long' and with the different story lines, sometimes difficult to understand accents and philosophic punch it feels even longer.
With it being based on a book (which I didn't read) that has 6 separate stories with a specific order, this could not have been translated to the big screen without changing the structure of the stories. So it got chopped into many different smaller pieces and throughout the movie the viewer jumps from one story to another.
It makes for a more proper build up, but it unfortunately also created a big mess that must've been hard to follow for at least a part of the viewers. You can see even the actors having some difficulty with it at times.
It is obvious right from the start that this movie is aiming for a more intellectual public and wants to deliver a wide spectrum of ideas and views. It tries its very best, and succeeds in a multitude of ways, but never grasps the feeling of completion. As much as it brings out a message of everything is connected, the script might have needed a few more rewrites to make it more interconnected itself.
You could argue it is either too long with no strong red line, or too short to succeed in making the connection between stories and between audience and characters. There are the obvious crossovers; like a flashback to a previous story in time and the recurring actors, plus some (broad) recurring themes. But besides that it doesn't link the stories together well enough.
There are many great actors in many different roles they handle quite well. I was especially surprised by Hugh Grant as an oil company executive. Hugo Weaving is, unfortunately, type-casted as the villain in every storyline. He does a great job of course, but with such a diversity of stories and settings I expected him to get a good guy out of it as well. (Besides maybe during the very last scene as an interrogator.)
Also Korean actress Bae Doo Na was a treat playing a sort of 'ghost in the shell' girl in futuristic Neo Seoul. I think something the Wachowski's had a lot of fun with.
It is an interesting and entertaining movie to watch, and I think it is best to watch it at least two or three times. But doing that would just take too much time for making it really worth your while.
There probably will be people who will absolutely love this movie completely, but it is not me. Seeing the 75% rating on trakt is about the best it gets on the internet I am fairly confident to say it isn't for the masses either.
'Let's Be Cops' a.k.a. New Girl tribute episode to 'The Other Guys' with Nick and Coach.
A pretty fun movie, even though it is written with not enough room left over for the actors to work with for more improvisation (or so it seems.) There are also a lot of scenes that are just not necessary and kinda over the top (the dancing of coach being a perfect example of it) for a movie like this. It makes for a few good smiles, but it also feels a bit forced into the film.
However, Jake and Damon are having a good chemistry on screen since they have been working together for a while with New Girl now, and this makes the movie highly enjoyable. The physical humor especially is worked out great. Adding Rob Riggle (as the backing 2nd 'straight man') makes them stand out even better.
This movie is not it's best in making you laugh out loud with witty comments or crazy jokes, but it definitely makes you light-hearted and kind of happy throughout and after the movie from watching these two 'silly smart guys' save the day.
The worst is the soundtrack of the film though. In the opening scene it is still funny to hear the guilty pleasure song from Backstreet Boys, but soon you'll discover that the whole movie is drenched in bad trap meets hiphop (I expected 'Beez in the trap" during almost every scene xD) and this bothered me a lot. Couldn't they use some more neutral les disturbing tracks if they didn't want to get cliché songs?
Anyway, the movie will not disappoint most of its viewers and even though it won't go to the top of the comedic genre either. It is great for some nice entertainment for (almost) everyone.
This one surprised me positively. I suspected a meager story with some lousy science background, but it turned out to be a story with more depth than I ever suspected.
The characters are very well written, and even some of the smaller side characters (the best friend, uncle D or Rupert) are very interesting and worked out to a detail you don't often see with such characters. Oh, and they are very well translated to the screen by their respective actors too!
I think the performance of Harry Hadden-Paton as Rupert was award worthy, and I enjoyed Bill Nighy a lot too of course, since he is awesome! :P
There is probably not enough material for a series, but I'd wish for some more screentime and background on some of the roles. Especially the sister Kit Kat intrigued me bigtime.
It is a very sentimental movie, but I couldn't really call it a love story. The relation between Mary and Tim was not the main theme of this movie for me. It felt more like the main character was trying to obtain something, but discovered something more important along the way.
By this it holds a philosophic message, but it does not confind that message in a closed subjective or life lesson. It rather sets you up to think about certain aspects of life, and makes you aware of the possibilities and choices you can make. Only to leave the choice to you in the end.
#Mild spoilers ahead#
I was looking forward to this movie for a while now, but I actually had to go out of my way to watch this in cinema since many places stopped showing it eerily fast after its release (which usually isn't a good sign.) As a movie that bombed in the box office I was a bit afraid of how it had turned out. Not having a 3D version while being released while big movies like Mad Max and Jurassic World are also in cinema is not easy either. It turned out to be not too bad in the end.
Of course the language and images gets toned down a bit because it is a Disney movie aimed at a younger public, but it definitely did not neglect to entertain the older audience as well. It has some great humour without being dumb or childish, and some of the lines are a bit corny, but that's to be expected with the target group in mind.
Great work from Raffey Cassidy who steals the show while George Clooney and Hugh Laurie deliver an enjoyable and professional performance. Britt Robertson (the main reason how I got interested in this flick) grows during the movie and shows the promise of an upcoming talent.
It looks like most of the budget went to the actors and visuals, the visual are rather nice as a result. Many great shots and world building is done to make the Tomorrowland feel real, as well as the CGI. The electricity (?) was especially cool to see. Even though the main plot is a bit basic, it still is a true Disney movie that can make every story level up a notch by adding some mystery and wonder. They successfully added a lot of interesting information to mix it up and avoid becoming a run of the mill family movie without substance. Also this means Hugh Laurie got some great material to work with to make him feel less of a bad guy, and you even feel a bit sorry for him in the end.
Even though the movie contains a clear message with a warning, it does maintain a positive approach, and doesn't preach its audience.
It is hard to say why this movie actually bombed, since it turned out to be so great. It will never be the best movie ever made, but it deserves much more than grossing less than half its total budget (so far.)
I enjoyed this one more than the 1st part. But on general: 3 movies is just too much for this story (or at least if they do it like this) and this reflects badly on scenes that are simply too long. Since the first movie simply covered less story, it tended to get very slow paced and kinda boring. The 2nd movie (luckily) covers a bigger part of the story, so this does not happen anymore. Or at least in a less obvious way. Soome action scenes are still too long, for example the barrel ride chase and the fight with Smaug.
Now here comes my critical disapproval (or the rant.)
I did not understand why, with so much time, they had to cut a lot of stories short or removed completly in favour of those long scenes. Beorn's story is cut so short that you barely get to know him (he was one of the characters I looked forward to the most.) The same goes for the conversations betweet Bilbo and Smaug. It now ended up being a massive chain of action events after the initial (good!) conversation, in stead of Biblo earning the respect of the dwarfs after stealing something from Smaug first. The dragon never met with Thorin as far as I know, and goes to laketown after Bilbo betrays his trust by stealing from him. Also, the dwarfs already learn about the ring after Bilbo saves them from the spiders in Mirkwood. Another crucial part in them getting to trust and respect him more. Thorin turning on Biblo had no emotional effect at all with the setting they chose to follow in the movie.
The one part where I thought Jackson did a good thing with expanding an unrelated story was with expelling the dark force (Sauron) from his hideout. This is barely mentioned in the book and imho merely an excuse for Gandalf to leave the party (since LOTR wasn't written yet.) In hindsight of the big LOTR trilogy Tolkien published later, and of course the movies, this is a nice extension in the story.
I did miss Saruman though, I thought all the wizards helped fight Sauron/The Necromancer and barely defeated him (but I can be wrong about that.) My point being, if P. Jackson wanted some awesome action, he just had to put an all out wizard fight in it, in stead of the 'itunes visuals' battle between Gandalf's light and Sauron's darkness.
Concluding; with 2,5 hours and 3 movies there is plenty of time to get these vital plot points in the movie. If they had placed more of the story in part 1 and leave out the completely irrelevant Elven women Tauriel for example. First use the crucial information, if you have screentime left after doing that, than expand scenes or throw in extra characters.
I have no idea how long those battle scenes are going to be in Part 3, since we only have the battle of Laketown and the battle of the 11 armies left, but I am afraid it is going to be a very different ending, or just a very stretched out (read: boring) one.
The main point Peter Jackson missed in this story, or so it seems, is that this is Bilbo's story, and not the story of a group of dwarves that coincidentally have a Hobbit in their midst.
Well, that's as much as the story goes, obviously that's my main point :P
Now on the the positive things:
Smaug was very well done, loved his voice and how he behaved. Great job. Really satisfactory how he turned out to be on screen. Loved every second of him. He is intelligent, cunning, strong, vengeful, selfish and greedy. Pretty much how I imagined him.
Martin Freeman was doing a fantastic job too, such a respite after 3 movies of Elijah Wood moaning. No flashbacks to Sherlock Holmes, where he does an amazing job as well.
And also the visuals and sound are top notch once again.
I expected a run of the mill low budget poor attempt at an action scifi movie, so I was pleasantly surprised about this.
About the low budget and scifi I was correct, for the rest I was not.
The opening feels kinda gimmicky with the whole visual representation and introduction. The parts where this 'theme' of the opening the television screen template is used again, are most likely the poorest part of the film. After this we get dumped immediately into the actual opening. It could use some more easing into, because I felt kind of shocked into it. Mostly because of the instant fast paced talking and heavy dialect. It does effectively sets the tone and expectations for the film immediately, and makes clear that this is a dialogue driven film. More action than some mild running you should not expect!
Dialogue is this films strongest point. Not only the way people talk, but rather what they say are very character-centered. This causes very recognizable identifiers between characters from the second they are introduced, as well as an idea of the time period. Even some of the minor side characters feel like actual characters, opposed to the blank slates we often see in many movies.
Through dialogue and with the benefit of some, surprisingly I might add, good acting the main characters are set up. Nobody will win an Oscar for their performance in this film anytime soon, but the (at least to me) unknown actors held their own very well. Especially considering several slow zoom long shots that were used. Because the film heavily leans on its dialogue, it is commendable that these actors can carry this as well as they do. Many have failed or done (much) worse under similar circumstances (including A-list stars.)
It is a shame though, that this character setup does not really lead anywhere. The 2 protagonists lack some kind of progress or journey or anything at all xD Everything was there, but the characters went nowhere and we were left with just the promise of an arc. Of course stuff happens (especially in the conclusion) and there is story development, but the people we met at the beginning were the exactly the same at the end, and nobody ever had to change or work through any personal obstacle. The story itself is also pretty straightforward. Not worthy of the name mystery, but straightforward enough and with enough substance to not totally crumble. Unfortunately, this leaves with a rather lackluster, maybe even unsatisfying end.
Visually it can be a bit (too) dark, and some shots are a bit awkward or 'too much', but besides the aforementioned opening 'theme' it luckily doesn't fully go off the rails. Of course, again, do note expect any large scale blockbuster CGI or anything even close to that. But it would be silly if you would expect that in a film that costs about the same as just 1 car in the Fast & Furious franchise.
All in all, a decent low budget scifi slow burn that fizzles out in the end. I would only recommend this if you are okay with watching something you won't see from the likes of Michael Bay, Christopher Nolan or Marvel studios.
'Mulan' suffers from poor character writing and questionable creative decisions that ultimately could disappoint both audiences it was made for.
As with most of the Disney live action remakes, 'Mulan' uses a similar base as it's 1998 animated version. However it does not try to recreate it's predecessor scene for scene, while also not deviating as much as some of the other remakes did. Ultimately the balance of originality was pretty well done in this regard. Combine this with stunning set pieces and an inspiring message and this should make for a good, or at least an entertaining, movie. The bad news is that it doesn't.
Warning: Spoilers ahead! (hidden)
What Mulan (played by Liu Yifei) initially is fighting for is the safety of her family (mostly her father) and bringing honour to her family. This is a challenge for her, because her skills do not conform to what is accepted for girls in her society. Mulan has a high amount of chi inside her. Chi (in this movie) is an inconsistently used power that is either a stand-in for magic, or for being able to do martial arts at high levels without (proper) training.
The problem starts with that Mulan's whole character arc is based on this aspect, foregoing any actual personality and turning her into basically a Mary Sue. Only mid-second act we are shown she can outsmart others and can think tactically, which is not (properly) set up.
The sad thing is that the aspect of chi does not enrich the story, but rather takes away from Mulan as a character.
At the opposite side of the spectrum we have the "witch" Niang (played by Gong Li) who uses her chi to wield magic. She has arguably the best character development in the film, however predictable. She joins the enemy Rouran army because she was not accepted for who she was. In this way she hopes to change the world and get rid of the oppression against woman that are different. However she gets betrayed by the Rouran leader, Bori Kahn (played by Jason Scott Lee), who has the same denigrating ideas about who she is. After Mulan gets accepted for who she is by her fellow soldiers, the witch redeams herself by sacrificing her life to save Mulan.
During a key scene of the movie, Mulan and Niang meet, and Mulan declares she fights for the emperor because she knows her place. In that moment she chooses to continue the cycle of oppression she experienced in the first place. This was such a strange moment for me, because it contradicted her original motivation completely. It looked like it was a later change after studio intervention, and it was what broke Mulan's character.
It did not help that most of the performances of the actors were rather lackluster. I can not qualify it as bad, ,most of the time it was just fine. But there were moments when the acting was not convincing or too mediocre and lacking dedication. I had hoped to see a bit more of Jet Li, but with the role he plays my expectations were not set too high.
As said in the opening, the set pieces, background and photography that are done for this movie are stunning. CGI is done very well too. Not too in your face, and most of the time not obtrusive. Costumes and make-up is also masterfully done, and deserves big compliments. So many times you can just look at the images on screen and forget about the story for a moment and feast your eyes.
The directing however is awkward from time to time. Rather intrusive camera movements and strange angles and cutting. Especially during two action scenes of the Rourans attacking, several confusing and unnecessary camera rotations were used that had no function other than being a gimmick. Cutting was often at not intuitive moments and unusual time- and locations jumps happened more than you would want to see. There might have been some inconsistency in the editing process or during the re-shoots, but it was noticeably distracting.
The story itself was done well enough. Of course there was already a solid basis for the story, and I think they build nicely on that. They worked in some new material, gave the enemy a more appropriate name than the kind of inaccurate 'Huns' it used to be. The action was expanded and some interesting perspectives were added. I did not miss the comic relief dragon nor the music, I think it could have messed with the tone of the movie too much. Overall it was a rather coherent and consistent story, but it also did not achieve great heights.
It was obvious that Disney did not want to rub the message too much in your face. The movie can lead to some debate even as it is. And Disney clearly did not want to scare away the Chinese audience, or worse, displease the Chinese government. I think it was difficult for the studio to balance between keeping western audience satisfied as well as the Chinese audience, while also satisfying fans of the 1998 animation and newcomers. It affected the story in making it safe, while at the same time trying to please several camps resulting in some inconsistencies. But in the end, I think it could have been a lot worse.
While 'Mulan' is beautiful to watch at times, the characters and message of the movie are broken. The studio trying to please too many people from very different backgrounds damaged the movie, even though it could have been much worse. I think it is a fine movie for the majority of people to enjoy, but don't expect much special.
Average action movie that for some reason is lacking in VFX while it is supposed to excel in that.
Not only the CGI is wonky, even lightning and coloration is simply terrible at points. Best example is the 'night' scene at the harbour, which is filmed on a way too bright day. I never saw moonlight bounce of surfaces (forehead, hair, boats, water surface) that brightly! xD I have no problem with darkening a day shot scene itself, it has been done for decades in various ways and degrees of success (although it can make a movie feel a bit dated) but this was clearly a case of thinking ANYTHING can be done in post, which is simply not true. Although this movie wanted to show how advanced CGI/VFX has become, it became more proof in what way it still fails (regardless of the reason why.)
Most action scenes itself are enjoyable though, with a highlight being the motor chase scene. Even a prolonged wrestling fight/hand to hand fight and an underwater fight don't feel too confusing, which is worth a compliment. Fast paced, without jumping all over the place, and dares and succeeds to use some longer than average shots in the middle of dense action giving a proper situational awareness to the viewer.
The story is not great, but also not terribly weak. Better than the average action movie for sure, but it won't win a price for storytelling anytime soon. The focus is obviously put more toward the action, and that is fine.
This is also noticeable in the dialogues. which are never memorable but also not become too crazy. Although it can get a bit flat or cringy sometimes. Especially in moments when the acting is also failing. In general it is, again, not terrible, but it lacks passion and in some cases can be lackluster, while in other cases it can be called over the top.
Overall enjoyable movie, and to me it did not feel like a waste of time. But also I would not recommend it quickly, and a good chance it will be forgotten in a few years time.
As someone who didn't read the books but did watch the original animated Disney movie a lot, this movie left me a bit divided.
On the one side it is a beautiful, well designed and neatly worked out movie, with astonishing CGI, visuals, (voice) acting and a modernised more appropriately paced story. On the other hand some of the characters contradicted themselves or felt unnatural to me, and some of them became obsolete to a point.
Since it is easier to whine, I will mostly do that during this review :P
To start off with Mowgli, first he offers to leave (something that felt very unnatural to me for a boy that age) and moments later he doesn't want to anymore. This could have been handled much more smoothly. Baloo is a lazy, blackmailing assh*le at first, and never really recovers from that character damage. I also did not particular liked the God-like image of the elephants, nor the grumpy Louie that didn't seem to have any sense of humour in him. And then we have Kaa, who makes 1 appearance in the movie and does not add anything at all to the progression of the story.
It also mirrored a lot of scenes from other (famous) movies. The most prominent ones: In the end Shere Khan tries to get Mowgli to turn to the dark side like a real emperor of Star Wars, but before this happens the 'Disney factor' swings in, and suddenly every single animal jumps in (sigh) to help Mowgli. There is no Baloo near-tragedy (one of the strongest parts of the animation) and it makes you wonder why those pricks (the jungle animals) let Khan kill Akela in the first place... And with the death of Shere Khan we go full on Lion King when Scar kills Mufasa. Maybe it was a failed attempt to make an 'homage' to the reuse of stock images in the original animated jungle book by Disney, but it was horrible to watch.
Last but not least they added 2 deaths to the movie, something I didn't really think is necessary in a movie like this, which has more than enough emotional and moral themes to build on.
Even though the animated Disney movie (apparently) did change a lot about the original story, I thought the animated story was very straightforward and without errors, even though a bit comedic and slow at places. The live action version successfully transports the story into a new century, but it does trade in some of its strengths because of that.
It became and IS a great movie to watch in the end, but I will much rather recommend the almost 50 year old earlier version.
I didn't get what this movie was about at all. And I understood ' Primer'....
After looking online for explanations everything fell into place. This movie is going to be on my rewatch lists for at least a couple of more views. It is quite ingenious, and if you don't want to look up what exactly is going on, you will probably need at least 3 views before you get it. It might be more.
It is a true Lynch movie, so the educated movie fan could understand this movie better than me, from all the hints and clues Lynch scattered throughout the film. The fact that there are 10 clues added to the DVD release cover (who are as cryptic as Egyptian hieroglyphs as well by the way) screams 'overcomplicated' more than Mell Gibson screams for freedom. So this is not a movie for when you are drunk with friends, or when you are looking for just a fun family movie. This is also not a good date-night movie, nor one to play in a pub. It is only and solely meant to be watched with all your 110% undivided attention while you pluck your brain what exactly is going on.
The movie was a disaster at the box office (grossing only half of what it cost) and it is perfectly understandable why. The average movie goer would write it off as the most confusing and nonsensical movie ever, and even a large part of the more experienced viewers, but without a more extensive knowledge about movie esthetics's, would probably be too confused to appreciate it to its complete potential. I will most likely fall in that latter group, and I am a bit disappointed about that.
The fact it was still nominated for an Oscar clearly shows its value (that is, if you believe those nominations are worth anything of course.) I can only wish to fully understand this movie, but I'm afraid I never completely will.
For the ones who want to get some help in understanding the story, you can check out this website: http://www.mulholland-drive.net But I would strongly advice against going there before watching the movie at least once. It will take away some of the magic.
To be Continued...?
This movie is a good watch. It has good performances by the 2 kids and the mother (Saldana.) There is some debate about Ruffalo his role, but I definitely enjoyed it. I have to be honest that I am not that familiar with bipolar disorder in real life, so I am probably not the best to ask if he overacted or did or did not display the full palet of manic depression, but I didn't see that. To me he displayed the various parts of manic depression and gloom, energetic moments and hyper-activeness and also the calm and happy moments where he can just enjoy everything as it is. So as far I can say he was subtle and covered all the aspects in his act.
I was disappointed about the ending though. The story steadily progresses, but it never fully got to that conclusion you are waiting for. It just stops at some point, which is a bit anticlimactic. This might be intended to make a message that there is no end to his struggle, but it did left me feeling a bit out of the loop. A 'to be continued' that will never be followed up.
