Allegorical tale about the complicated relationship between man and woman that leads to toxic masculinity and physical and psychological violence towards women.
The setting of the English countryside is ecstatic as the setting of a fairy tale but like every fairy tale there are monsters here too.
In this film the monsters are all men, all with the same face, all with the same hostile and sexist behavior towards Harper.
The "nice guy" landholder who always expects something in return, the adolescent who threatens and offends, the sexually repressed priest who blames women for all human suffering, the psychopathic stalker.
They are nothing more than the mirror of Harper's husband who committed suicide and layed the blame on her because she asked the divorce.
They all represent the same type of toxic, possessive, and narcissistic male.
The final sequence shows in pure body horror style the self-referentiality, the narcissism, the petticism and the weakness of the typical man of the patriarchal society. Deep down he is a deeply insecure man who desperately wants to be loved by women unconditionally.
It is a good film that could have been even better if the metaphors had not been so explicit (and often cheap) and if they had outlined the protagonist better. The photography is splendid and the ending is also memorable in its rawness.
Bluray Quote:
"James, what is it that you want from me?"
"Your love"
Good:
-Violence and gore in this film are absolutely exceptional. In quantity and quality. A lot of memorable scenes for cruelty and originality
-Disgusting, disturbing, very very offensive but extremely amusing
-No CGI but good old special effects, with props, makeup, and a lot of fake (?) blood
-A collection of really evil nazi puppets that do the worst things to people who do not deserve it (which is the essence of the horror genre)
-A lot of black humour
-Interesting characters in their own oddity. Not only the main characters but even casual victims of the killing have characteristic traits that makes them unique (a line they say, a physical feature etc)
-Opening titles (the comic style is great)
Bad:
-There is more plot in the opening titles than in the entire movie.
The story is very simple, this can be a good thing because it allows the movie to be focused on the killings, but a bit more development would have added suspance and depth to the movie.
-Open ending (and we don't know when and if they will make a sequel)
If you liked the violence in this movie i recommend checking out S. Craig Zahler filmography. Bone Tomhawk, Brawl in Cell Block 99, Dragged Actoss Concrete are great movies.
DVD quote:
"Cuddly Bear don't wanna hurt nobody, even a hater, but Mrs. Cuddly Bear wants herself a new hi-def TV.
Cuddly Bear's got principles, but he also got priorities."
This Predator sequel moves the setting from the tropical to the urban jungle. The idea of putting the Predator into a conflict between criminal gangs and the LAPD and an internal conflict between the police and the FBI works fairly well.
Even the protagonist and the characters, although they are stereotypes of the 80-90s action-crime genre, are fun to watch.
The action of course isn't on par with the previous film but it's still good, and there are some remarkable scenes like the gunfire at the beginning and the predator's assault at the mob boss apartment.
What doesn't work so well is the Predator.
The psychological characterization of the alien is completely wrong. The predator of the first film was interesting because he was a super-technological and intelligent hunter who stalked his prey and killed it silently, but here the Predator is described more like the classic Hollywood monster, that is physically stronger but dumber than humans. An example is the metro scene, an attack that doesn't make sense. There's even a scene in which he climbs a skyscraper and yells at the top, the King Kong reference is clear.
Even the physical aspect is much worse than the previous film, here the predator is disproportionate, he has a head that is too large compared to the body and he is massive and clumsy in its movements. Finally the idea of making the mouth look like a vagina (and of having the protagonist make fun of it) is absurd. The predator should inspire fear and terror, not hilarity.
Everything wrong with this movie:
-It takes itself too seriously. The introspective narrative voice, the coming of age drama, the constant references to religion are shallow.
These things are not enough to make a "The Road" with a vampiric background
-The plot and the world in which the film is set are full of inconsistencies. At the beginning, the narrator tells us that the situation is desperate and those who have decided to stay together in cities and villages have not survived. A little later they enter a fairly populated city where everyone gets along well and there are also enough resources for everyone...
The protagonist tells us that, however, he doesn't want to stay because his destiny is the street and vampire hunting... later on in the film they load up their car with all kinds of people (a nun, pregnant women, a man that could have been bitten by a vampire, who could slow them down and hamper them in their hunt for vampires) to go towards New Heaven which is supposed to symbolize a return in the civilized world...
-Vampires in this movie are retarded zombies. At one point a character is left alone at night without weapons in the midst of a herd of 6-7 vampires, he comes out unharmed (we don't know how since the director doesn't show us anything) . Also the scene of the vampire trap with a bloody teddy bear is hilarious.
-The main villains of this film are a clichè group of religious fanatics that have no purpose at all except create chaos, rape nuns and kill the protagonist of the film.
-The final fight is ridiculous, an highlight of the film solved in 2 minutes.
In summary this is a zombie movie without what that makes zombie movies great (the desperate fight for resources and survival, the collapse of trust between people, the selfishness of humankind in desperate situations, the fear that anyone could have been bitten and turn to a zombie/vampire at any moment, the presence of an ubiquitous fearful and implacable enemy etc..)
Good:
-Astounding action. Direction, cinematography, sound effects and all the technical aspects of this film are extraordinary
-Realism. In an era in when even dialogues between characters are shot in front of a green screen, the fact that they decided to shoot this film in the air, with real planes doing real maneuvers and to put the actors inside a real cockpit must be praised
-Tom Cruise. The film is basically a celebration of the actor and his acting\action skills
Bad:
-More a remake than a sequel. There is little of original in this film.
-The non-action scenes. A lot of them are bad copies of what we already seen in the first movie. The themes are also recycled from the first film but explored in a worse way.
-Actors (Tom Cruise aside of course). An ill and mute Val Kilmer has still twice the charisma of all the new actors they introduced as pilots.
-Romance. Forced and compared to the love story between Maverick and Charlie in the first film terrible.
-Why didn't they call back Kelly McGillis? For a film that focus a lot on nostalgia, her absence is a serious shortcoming.
DVD Quote:
Rooster: "I saved your life!"
Maverick: "I saved your life! That's the whole point!"
