Barbenheimer: Part 1 of 2
This is the kind of film I really don’t want to criticize, because we don’t get nearly enough other stuff like it. However, mr. Nolan has been in need of an intervention for a while now, and unfortunately all of the issues that have been plaguing his films since The Dark Knight Rises show up to some degree here. Visually it might just be his best film, and there’s some tremendous acting in here, particularly by Murphy and RDJ. However, it makes the common biopic mistake of treating its subject matter like a Wikipedia entry, thereby not focussing enough on character and perspective. As a whole, the film feels more like a long extended montage, I don’t think there are many scenes that go on for longer than 60 seconds. There’s a strong ‘and then this happened, and then this happened’ feel to it, which definitely keeps up the pace, but it refuses to stop and let an emotion or idea simmer for a while. There are moments where you get a look into Oppenheimer’s mind, but because the film wants to cover too much ground, it’s (like everything else) reduced to quick snippets. It’s the kind of approach that’d work for a 6 hour long miniseries where you can spend more time with the characters, not for a 3 hour film. I can already tell that I won’t retain much from this, in fact a lot of it is starting to blur together in my mind. There are also issues with some of the dialogue and exposition, such as moments where characters who are experts in their field talk in a way that feels dumbed down for the audience, or just straight up inauthentic. Einstein is given a couple of cheesy lines, college professors and students interact in a way that would never happen, Oppenheimer gives a lecture in what’s (according to the movie) supposed to be Dutch when it’s really German; you have to be way more careful with that when you’re making a serious drama. Finally, there are once again major issues with the sound mixing. I actually really loved the score, but occasionally it’s blaring at such a volume where it drowns out important dialogue in the mix. I’m lucky enough to have subtitles, but Nolan desperately needs to get his ears checked, or maybe he should’ve asked some advice from Benny Safdie since he’s pretty great with experimental sound mixing. My overall feelings are almost identical to the ones I had regarding Tenet; Nolan needs to rethink his approach to writing, editing and mixing. This film as a whole doesn’t work, but there are still more than a few admirable qualities to it.
Edit: I rewatched this at home to see whether my feeling would change. I still stand by what I wrote in July, though the sound mix seems to have been improved for the home media release. It sounds more balanced and I didn’t miss one line of dialogue this time around. I’m slightly raising my score because of that, but besides that I still think it’s unfocused, overedited, awkwardly staged and scripted etc.
5.5/10
Smartest creature ever. Super adaptable, evolutionary. This is by far the bad assiest being ever imagined. The science in the movie was up to my extremely lofty standards. For the first time, ever in a horror movie, this thing could theoretically actually exist makes the movie extremely interesting. The main reason I gave it a 9, is due to the fact, they should have sacrificed the first guy, immediately. I had one other issue, but that would tip spoilers. Other than that, this is a great, thrilling, mind bender of a horror sci-fi movie.
And for those who ridiculously state this was "like Alien". This movie had a super intelligent, highly evolved bacteria. This was never done before. Actual physics and biology was implemented. It wasn't just some creature out of the mind of a teenager. The crew were attempting to contain and survive. Never before have I saw a movie, that was about containing an entity while above the planet. This used an actual space station, that is real and does exist. This was not a fairy tale of a movie, as was Alien. No one was hunting this thing down with guns and such. This movie is about what can actually happen as we go frolicking around our solar system. This is something that we should actually be worried about. That is completely ground breaking in every way possible. The Europa Report was closer related to this film, but even that was not as real of a threat as this movie, since it was on a Saturn moon, using theoretical science and fictional equipment. Life used all actual equipment, actual science, and actual crew reactions, although, I would have sacrificed the first guy, immediately and launched the immature state of Calvin at the first sign of an issue. And one last thing, Calvin didn't even kill anyone, except the first guy, who was attempting to incinerate it. I bet in part two, we will find out he is actually peaceful.
This movie was nothing like Alien. Besides the fact that the setting was in space and there was a creature hunting them down (or was he?). The Alien was killing, Calvin was surviving.
Well, so I just saw this movie for the first time yesterday. Almost 40 years after it was released. A bit late yeah, but it never really seemed interesting enough to check out. And what can i say? To be honest, I expected the movie to be pretty bad considering how much praise it gets (usually in horror that's a sure sign it's only trendy to like it somehow). But I never expected it to be this bad.
The characters are just a big mess. The acting is atrocious and the casting choices are very weird. Everybody looks way to old for the role they play, and the dialogues are just some of the worst I've ever heard. My favorite being Laurie saying "was that the boogeyman?" which had me burst out in laughter. Great stuff. Anyway, none of the characters ever sound realistic in any way. And there is NO chemistry with any character and I mean zero. Michael Myers himself is just nothing special at all. The opening scene with him is pretty great tbh (when he's a little kid), but after that, it's all downhill, and we don't get to know anything about him at all whatsoever. He's truly lacking any character whatsoever. He doesn't speak or even have motives. He just goes around strangling people. Yeah very creative.
The story is among the worst I've ever seen. Almost not a single thing makes sense, and it becomes very slapstick at times. It is the perfect example of all the archetypes everybody hates in horror movies like "go randomly into the closet" and "stab the killer and toss the knife away afterwards and sit and wait for him to get up" or my personal favorite "just give him the car". The main storyline itself is extremely narrow and it truly feels random. For like 70% of the movie there are no real interactions of any kind between anyone and some overgrown babysitters just sees spooky things and gets killed in (extremely) predictable and stupid ways. There is a doctor too, but that part is so ludicrous that it almost seems to be for comedic relief. He's sure funny when he breaks out his doomy and gloomy speeches, I'll give him that. Especially when he's peeking on the kids from behind the bush. That was hilarious. The ending is atrocious too. Worst end sequence I've seen in a while. And that brings us to...
The directing is simply awful. Some shots drag out for a laughable long time, so much that it gets really awkward. And there is so much repetition too, and some parts that (I guess) is supposed to be scary just looks very funny. Like the times when Michael collapses. Or when they are being tailed by a car accompanying the "creepy music" for like the 5th time in like 10 minutes. The editing is poor also, like when Michael cracks the car window. And the movie is shot in such a way that not many scares are unexpected. It's a very predictable movie. Like the music will always let you know well before hand when something creepy is about to happen. Which brings us to...
The score is very amateurish and very often plain bad. Yes the main theme is kinda good, but not after you've heard it slapped on like 50 scenes. It starts to get funny after a while to always hear that tune. Not very scary.
Overall, the movie felt like a very bad low budget horror of it's time. But would it have been better back in the days? Hell no. It's a bad movie, no matter what time period it's from. It's just a very trendy movie, and now that I've finally seen it, I can safely say that I wasn't missing out on anything. Phew.
Everyone keeps suggesting there is a paradox concerning the 5D future humans and their ability to save humanity in the past. It's really not a paradox at all. Everyone assumes humanity survived to ascend to the 5th dimension but how could humanity exist in the future if not for the actions of Cooper.. who was guided by future humans (begin endless loop).
Did anyone ever consider the other important character in the movie? Amelia Brand carried on with the rest of her mission (thanks to Cooper). I postulate that Brand used the human seeds as intended and set up a colony. A colony that would thrive and eventually evolve beyond human. Thus Earth is of little importance, and may have indeed died. These colonists, and the generations that followed, would have been told the story of a great man (Cooper) who saved them from extinction. With the ability to manipulate space-time, they would pay homage to their hero "God" by helping him in the past so he may fulfill the mission most important to him, to once again see his daughter. Plan B worked beautifully. But the 5d humans, having the power to bend space-time, decided there's no reason why Plan A had to fail.
Denis Villeneuve is the man!
There’s only one word that came into my mind after watching it: finally.
Finally, a blockbuster that isn’t afraid to be primarily driven by drama and tension, and doesn’t undercut its own tone by throwing in a joke every 30 seconds.
Finally, a blockbuster that puts actual effort in its cinematography, and doesn’t have a bland or calculated colour palette.
Finally, a blockbuster with a story that has actual substance and themes, and doesn’t rely on intertextual references or nostalgia to create a fake sheen of depth.
Finally, a blockbuster that doesn’t pander to China by having big, loud and overblown action sequences, but relies on practical and grounded spectacle instead (it has big sand worms, you really don’t need to throw anything at the screen besides that).
Finally, a blockbuster that actually feels big, because it isn’t primarily shot in close ups, or on a sound stage.
And of course: finally, a blockbuster that isn’t a fucking prequel, sequel, or connected to an already established IP somehow.
(Yeah, I know Tenet did those things as well, but I couldn’t get into that because the characters were so flat and uninteresting).
This just checks all the boxes. An engaging story with subtext, very well set up characters, great acting (like James Gunn, Villeneuve's great at accentuating the strengths of limited actors like Dave Bautista and Jason Momoa), spectecular visuals and art design (desaturated but not in an ugly washed out way), pacing (slow but it never drags), directing, one of Hans Zimmer’s best scores: it’s all here.
I only have one real criticism: there’s too much exposition, especially in the first half.
It can occasionally hold your hand by referencing things that have already been established previously, and some scenes of characters explaining stuff to each other could’ve been conveyed more visually.
Other than that, it’s easily one of the best films of the year.
I’ve seen some people critiquing it for being incomplete, which is true, but this isn’t just a set up for a future film.
It feels like a whole meal, there are pay offs in this, and the characters progress (even if, yes, their arcs are still incomplete).
8.5/10
This is one of Marvel Studios’ riskier projects, the hyperlink structure combined with the villain being the main character immediately makes it stand out in the genre. It’s because of those two aspects that the film works as well as it does. Thanos is a great character with an interesting motivation. The animation is so detailed and lifelike that it never fails to bring out the emotion, in fact I’d argue that the scenes between him and Gamora have the most emotional punch (courtesy of Zoe Saldana and Josh Brolin, who both put in a really solid performance). The balancing of all the different plot lines is also quite well done as there’s a relevancy to each one, nor does the tone feel too disjointed at any point. Some transitions or the sudden pop culture riffing during serious scenes can be awkward, but it’s handled about as well as it could. The exposition is handled tastefully and kept to a minimum, it instead chooses to focus on unexpected interactions between characters from different branches of the Marvel universe, which is the more exciting part. I’m less into the action and filmmaking, however. Not a lot about the camerawork or score jumps out to me, I feel like what little vision the Russos brought to their previous MCU projects is completely lost here. The washed out colour palette (which for some reason is slightly more vibrant during scenes in space) and obvious music embellishments don’t evoke all that much. The staging and editing of the action is a little too quick for my liking, the moments that are meant to be memorable don’t leave much of an impression because the editing doesn’t take its time to punctuate the stunts properly. Some of the CGI also feels a little weightless, for example Stark’s suit looks and feels like its made from paper. The resulting scenes, such as the final battle on Titan, feel more like small scale, digital mush than the big epic scenes they’re aiming for. Once the film decides to slow down for the dramatic conclusion, I find its intent to be manipulative and disingenuous. I felt that way after watching it the first time in the cinema, and after every ‘death’ in this movie having been retconned in one way or another, it turns out I was right. Even in its riskier films, Marvel will find ways to take most of the edges off. Overall, it’s still decent but it’s lost a lot of its flavour for me over the years.
6/10
Midsommar is a complicated beast. Those going for something as linear as Hereditary will be immediately disappointed by Midsommars somewhat convoluted plot elements and meandering pace. I sat in the cinema as the credits rolled by, deep in thought about what I just watched, and if it was any good. Nothing really sat well with me, and the film didn't really connect upon immediate completion, but I gave it time to digest.
Ari Asters two movies are very much at odds with each other. Hereditary slaps you with it's excellent presentation, pace, sense of dread and quality of acting on display. Then, upon further inspection, it's woven plot elements and symbolism shine through on subsequent viewing.
Midsommar is very much the opposite. The film almost dawdles in it's presentation and doesn't fully attack you with it's acting chops or narrative (although Florence is simply stunning in her portrayal of Dani). Midsommar more presents it's parts in a very matter-of-fact fashion, and then leaves it up to you to connect the dots of both the plot and what's on display. While there is far too much to unpack in this small comment section, I'd just like to detail some of my favourite themes on display in Midsommar, and why it went from a 6/10 during my cinema viewing, to a solid 8 - 8.5/10 upon reflection.
--- LONG DISCUSSION OF SPOILERS BELOW THIS POINT ---
One of Midsommars central parallels is the individualism/selfishness of Western life and it's stark comparison to the commune we are introduced to. Examples of this are: During the intro, Dani is going through the trauma of a suicidal family member and her boyfriend, Christian, is encouraged by his friends to abandon her in her time of need telling her to see her therapist as it's not his problem. Christian echos these sentiments directly to Dani about her sister, telling her to leave her alone as she is just doing this for attention. Upon arriving at the commune in Sweden, Mark is unwilling to wait for Dani to be ready to take shrooms. Josh, knowing of Dani's recent trauma involving death, subjects her to the suicide of the elders for his own thesis and research. Christian uses the situation to further his own academic efforts, much to the annoyance of Josh. Everyone is acting in their own self interest regardless of the emotional toll this takes on their friendships. This is a stark contrast to how we see the commune deal with distress, emotion and personal issues. When Dani sees Christian cheating on her, the female members of the commune bawl, weep, scream and cry along with Dani, literally experiencing her burden with her to lessen the load. As described by Pelle, the commune "hold" you during your distress, helping you cope and living through those emotions with you. This is further cemented by the scene earlier in the movie, shortly after Dani's sister commits suicide. We see Dani hunched over Christian's lap overcome with emotion, screaming out the pain of the loss of her sister. Christian is anything but present however, his eyes vacant as if he weren't there with her at all. This is possibly my favourite theme of the movie, as it really paints how alone we are in modern society regardless of how many people we surround ourselves with. How many people are actually there for us in our time of need? Sure, they might be physically present, but are they actually there, sharing our pain? It's truly terrifying to think about.
My other favourite theme is who is and isn't a bad person. I've seen many people online say they think Christian is a horrible boyfriend for how he treats Dani. While I can understand their position, I struggle to see how Christian is the bad guy for his actions. Christian finds himself in a dying relationship which he is mentally checked out from but decides to stay to help her through the grief of losing her parents and sister. Christian even goes as far as to bring her on vacation with him to help her through her trauma, even though he wants to split up with her. Would the audience have prefered Christian leave Dani right after she lost her family? That would have been MUCH worse. Do these actions warrant what happens to Christian? I don't think so at all. Christian is so misunderstood in this movie, I can't wait to see it again to draw more conclusions on his character. Is Josh a bad person for wanting to fully envelope himself in a foreign culture? Although we know it is largely for academic gain, Josh does seem to love learning about the culture of these people, wanting to see how they operate and know every intricacy of their faith. Does this warrant his murder for trying to document their sacred texts? Should an outsider be murdered for enjoying and absorbing someone elses culture and customs, or should they be thanked for their interest and passion? (Sidenote, I see Josh's character as a direct reflection of the usual racial stereotypes we see in movies of this ilk. Usually we see the white academic researching the savage native/minority tribe, but Josh is the exactly flip of this, which is a nice touch). Were Connie and Simon wrong for coming into another culture and expressing disgust at their customs? Should they have been so outwardly disgusted and vocal about their disapproval while being welcomed in by the commune? Sure it didn't warrant their ultimate fate, but this small subplot asks an interesting question about outsiders attempting to shape and alter other cultures and customs as it doesn't sit with their ideals.
Other small details:
While it's directly conveyed to the viewer that the red haired girl is attempting to cast a love incantation on Christian via pubes in his pie and runes under his bed, very little attention is given to the fact that Christians drink is a slight shade darker than everyone elses. From the tapestry we see at the start of the festival, we know exactly what the red haired girl has slipped into his drink :face_vomiting: Fantastic subtle horror/grossness.
Pelle talks about how his parents died in a fire and the commune helped him through the trauma of that loss. After the ending, it's pretty clear the fire wasn't an accident, and they evidently died for some kind of ritual.
Artwork above Dani's bed at the beginning shows a girl with crown kissing a bear. While direct foreshadowing to latter events, it also asks the question if this was all fate. Dani's sister's final message reads "I see black now" (potentially a reference to The Black One) before killing herself and her parents. Were Dani's parents 72 and this was the end of their cycle? Was Dani's sister already a distant member of the commune?
Runes are scattered all throughout the film to foreshadow certain character arcs or add more meaning. My favourite hidden rune is the doors to the temple, which when open, make the rune for "Opening" or "Portal". Amazing attention to detail.
Yeah, this movie is much MUCH better on reflection and I absolutely cannot wait to see it again. I really hope Ari's 3 hour 40 minute directors cut is released so there is more to dissect. While not as immediately impressive has Hereditary, Midsommar definitely has the layers and complexity to be a slowburn horror classic.
EDIT: I am now 4 days out from my first viewing and I've not stopped thinking about this movie. I've become a frequent visitor of the films subreddit and have even purchased/listened to the films dread-inducing yet somehow joyous soundtrack a number of times throughout the days. I've been reading up on runes and their meanings, reading up set analysis for hidden meanings and any other small details others can find. A movie hasn't vibed with me like this for a long long time so to reflect this, I think it's only right I bump my score from an 8/10 to a 9/10. When I can get my hands on the digital download/Blu-Ray, I'm sure this might even go higher.
“Some men just want to watch the world burn, Master Wayne.” – Alfred, The Dark Knight.
Yes, some men just want to watch the world burn because there’s not much to them other than a truly evil soul. That’s the general idea and consensus behind Michael Myers. He doesn’t need a reason to kill because he is simply put…evil. Except, I felt like I needed a reason because it wasn’t giving us much of anything else as an alternative. There’s no motive, there’s barely any violence, when there is actual violence, there’s no gore or any real idea of where the victim was even struck. Even the acting is atrocious. As a member of an audience, I would have no idea of what’s even happening. I get it, they just want to give you an idea of what’s happening, which is fine most of the time…but if I don’t know what’s happening or where, I rarely care why.
The movie does do something right – it created a memorable looking villain. That may be because this movie is nearly 40 years old, but even so, it is what it is. It also had a good idea of how to present general creepiness based solely on the location of the camera – which helps when Michael Myers is stalking his victims. The music, I could have done without, but who cares. That being said, this is a movie that, in a way, changed the way horror films are presented. For that reason alone, I respect this movie, but I don’t like it – there’s too much about it that goes wrong in my opinion, and that comes down to the completely absent storytelling.
So here’s how it is…Halloween feels like a classic horror film. A part of that may solely be reputation and simplicity, but it feels how it should. That being said, its biggest weakness lies with storytelling. The reasoning behind Michael Myers doing what he does is as cheap as the movie…he’s evil – which means these victims are suffering from a random selection…they mean nothing…how can you care about their lives? There is barely any violence, which in and of itself is fine, but when there IS, it doesn’t show anything…so I’m left wondering how they died…apparently they were stabbed…which I guess doesn’t matter where. If you get stabbed anywhere on the body…you die. Apart from that, the acting is atrocious and it is downright weird towards the end – mainly the tombstone and ghost costume. Those are things you’d expect with a 8th or 9th installment running out of ideas…not the first movie ever.
So there it is. I wasn’t a fan, and I tried to list why. What is your opinion on this film?
Great movie, but what exactly are you trying to say, Peele?
How do I make sense of the weirdness in your film?
Are you trying to say that those who unite to build a wall, those who use their scizzors to divide other people in half, can’t see the light in the ‘US’?
Is the twist meant to indicate that we can’t be sure who’s on which side?
In other words: is this a big political metaphor, a critique against republicans?
Then again, you can also find themes about capitalism and class here, it’s so ambiguous and broad that it’s not being very precise on a subtextual level. Not that a movie has to, but this is a little too broad for my taste.
Still, great craftsmanship, really well acted, memorable, scary, funny, it’s very good.
The whole 300 million people are living underground reveal might be a little too much of a leap, I don’t think the movie was that fantastical up until that point (a similar problem that I have with Get Out, where the brain replacement twist kinda feels a little too out there compared to the movie preceding it).
7.5/10
I can say straight up this will not be a movie for everyone, but it really clicked for me. I would also say a blind watch is preferable in movies like this, I went in knowing almost nothing and if possible I think that's the way to watch the movie if possible.
For me it was incredibly immersive once established, with incredible sound design and score. The slow build of tension, unease and dread as things unfold. I'll admit, I've always been a fan of mediums that give the viewer the same amount of knowledge of whats going on as the characters have, and this nails that.
The premise has a whole has been done many times before, including this years Knock at the Cabin, but I've not seen that or read the book it was based on. But in relation to the other similar films, this takes the top spot for me.
While the ending itself is probably the weakest part of the movie for me personally because it answers just slightly too many questions a little bit too easily, the journey to get there was still worth the time and I think the ending might still work for others.
Bloodsport: “Nobody likes a showoff.”
Peacemaker: “Unless what they showing off is dope as fuck.”
James Gunn recently said in an interview that he finds superhero movies “mostly boring” right now. Anything ranging from safe and boring or technically well-made but disposable, at best. Gunn received at bit of heat from fans for those remarks, but in some sense, he’s not wrong. Because sometimes following the same formula will eventually wear fin and more risk taking needs to happen.
And here we have ‘The Suicide Squad’, the soft reboot to the 2016 film, but this time directed by Gunn himself, where he delivers a highly entertaining movie that is bursting with creativity and ultra-violence. James Gunn once again shakes up the superhero formula with a slick style. I’m just glad DC is finally letting directors have a voice and a vision, and I hope it stays like that.
The first 10-15 minutes tells you exactly what the movie is going to be.
I just can't believe we got something like this. It's 2 hours and 12 minutes long, but it's always on the move. It’s bonkers from start till finish, and I enjoyed every minute of it. This is probably one of the best shot movies in the DCU. The soundtrack is great as well and used effectively. The action scenes were insane and made the overall experience one of the most fun I had at the cinema in a long time.
A massive improvement over the 2016 film, AKA ‘the studio cut’, is that the movie doesn’t look ugly and isn’t chopped together by trailer editors. The movie is vibrant in colours that made it look pleasing to the eye. The structure at times is messy, and yet strangely well-paced, as there’s a lot going on.
Did I mention the movie is very gory? It’s cartoonish violence, or what people call "adult superhero movie", so it's not for kiddies or for the faint of heart. You would probably guess that not everybody on the team is going to make it to the end credits, so deaths are to be expected, but how certain characters “bite the dust” are so unexpectedly gruesome and brutal, it took me by surprise each time. The marketing for the movie was right, don’t get too attached. As I said before, James Gunn had complete creative control over the movie, and he doesn’t hold back on what he wrote and show on screen. But then again, it's a movie, it's not real, the actors who die on screen are fine in real life...I think.
All the cast members have equal amount of time to shine, and you like these super villains this time around, as each character had wonderful chemistry with each other. John Cena plays Peacemaker, who can be best described as a “douchebag version of Captain America”. An extreme patriot who will do the most horrific things for liberty. John Cena excels in the deadpan line delivery for comedic effect, but surprisingly enough, worked well in the serious moments. Looking forward to the spin-off show ‘Peacemaker’.
Margot Robbie once again nails the role of the chaotic but gleeful Harley Quinn. While the character isn’t front and centre this time around, more of a side character, but whenever the character is on screen, it’s instantly memorable.
Idris Elba plays Bloodsport, a contract killer who’s doing time in prison after failing to kill Superman with a kryptonite bullet, while also dealing with family issues, especially with his daughter. While the character may sound like Will Smith’s Deadshot from the 2016 film, but trust me, the execution here is much stronger. This is by far Elba’s best work in a while. Charismatic and a strong leading presence.
Polka Dot Man, played by character actor David Dastmalchian, a socially awkward, weird, and lame sounding character that has some serious mummy issues, which has a funny running visual gag throughout. However, because of Gunn’s writing and Dastmalchian's performance, the character is more than a joke, but a unique character to watch.
Ratcatcher 2, played wonderfully by Daniela Melchior, who brought so much warmth and heart to the film. I loved how they tied in her tragic backstory into the finale, as it honestly made me cry. And let’s not forget the king himself, King Shark, voiced by Sylvester Stallone. He stole every scene he’s in, because he’s so adorable and has such kind eyes, but when he’s hungry, he can be a killing machine.
The rest of the supporting cast, even in the smaller roles, still manage to stand out amidst all the chaos. I liked Joel Kinnaman as Rick Flag a lot more this time around, because the actor was given more to work with in terms of good material. Viola Davis is brilliant as the cold and ruthless Amanda Waller. And Peter Capaldi is always a pleasure to see. Also, I like the character of Weasel, who I can describe as a unholy offspring of Shin Godzilla and Rocket Racoon. He may not be beautiful to look at, but he's beautiful to me.
Like ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’, the movie has a lot of heart and I like how they took certain characters, who on page sound stupid and ridiculous but are handled with such love and depth, while also being self-aware of its own characterization.
You can literally watch this as a standalone movie and you won’t be lost or confused, as you don’t need to watch 22 other movies to understand it. This is by far the strongest entry in this jumbled mess of a cinematic universe.
Overall rating: Nom-nom!
As much as I wanted to like this movie, and ESPECIALLY not wanting to throw shade on Dave Bautista, I'm afraid the words of none other than Macbeth are the most fitting as far as a review of this enterprise goes:
A.O.D. is but a walking shadow, some poor players
That strut and fret their two and a half hours upon the stage
And then are heard no more: It is a tale
Told by idiots, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
That having been said, the REAL shame here is, that, with just a little bit of re jiggering, and a little less stupidity on the part of any one of the panopoly of characters, and, this could have not only been an epic movie, but, possibly a even a (2 or 3 movie) franchise!
Any movie that starts from the jump with nekkid zombie stripper ta ta's is a go for me, just on the "Hmmm, I ain't seen THAT before factor alone. Now, throw in Siegfried and Roy's zombified Manticore' , and, you're going to hold my interest. Add super quick and agile "rage zombies, and a mix of your usual suspect "shufflin' and bitin' " zombies, as well as a full auto Drax the Destroyer, and a crew of mangey former tier one operators, who served their country honorably, but per current SOP, were promptly shat upon by the country that they so dutifully served, then, give them a chance to for once not just even the score but come out ahead, and, you HAD the basis for a pretty decent horror adventure flick.
But then SOMBODY had to go and try to grow a brain, perhaps thinking they could be "edgy", and, instead of delivering a fun, intelligent live action "Walking Dead" (first few seasons only), they decided to suck all the common sense from EVERY characters brain, and then have each one of them suddenly go mute at the most inopportune times, when a word, a note, or even a cryptic whisper, could keep someone from becoming zombie snackos'. Now add to that mix, a teenaged girl with one of the most full blown cases of narcissistic personality disorder ever witnessed on film, and have her played by an actor who every time she opens her mouth you just want to backhand her and send her to her room with no dinner. But, she's also a master of either guilting her father (team leader Scott Ward) for doing something she later admits "he had to do", or, forcing him to let her accompany the squad, (to "rescue the aforementioned STUPID friend) by threatening to run off and do it alone anyway, which is a certain one way trip. So, welcome to mercenary baby sitting, Z/A style.
All is not lost though as there are some nice bonding moments between Zen "man some of the shizz I've done" Vanderohe, and newbie merc / safecracker Ludwig Dieter, especially when it is discovered he doesn't even know Zombie 101 basics. Raul Castillos' "Mickey" who at first seems to be either a You Tube poser, or just a bit crazy, then actually turns out to be an honorable guy. Samantha Joe's "Chambers" is a formidable street fighter, but, sadly , her heroic last stand is wasted when in the end, she got a case of the mutes, when she could have saved the entire crew with a shouted warning.
Nora Arnezeder is believable as Lilly, The Coyote, even if she does let little miss prissy teen smack her around a bit, for helping another of Kates IDIOT friends do something stupid, that, in the end, does not bode well for the entire team. Tig Notaro I guess is OK, especially since she was a last minute "digital" substitute for Chris D'Elia, who was unceremoniously cancelled and erased from the movie due to misconduct of the sexual kind. It's not seamless, but, it's not distracting either. But, she too, got hit with the idiot stick at the last minute, and, her indecision literally was catastrophic. In BOTH their story arcs, Snyder chose to plagiarize, er, uh, be "inspired" by ENTIRE SCENES from "Aliens", then "edgily" flip the script, by declaring opposite day at their individual conclusions.
The longest walk of shame, IMO, goes to Bautista's character Scott Ward, for being either too blind of just plain dumb, to not see through the machinations of neither his Japanese Benefactor, nor his henchman sent along to fulfill the ACTUAL goal of the "heist". But, in his defense, a couple hundred million dollars tax free, can buy a mighty dark pair of rose colored glasses, and, even though he can't see the forest for the trees, nor, apparently when the passion fires of his former flame have burst into a bonfire. Her end was so telegraphed, that even as it occurred, you weren't really shocked, just saddened. Just as his end, and the way it came about, had one waiting for the sound track to cue up Alanis Morrissette, but, perhaps they couldn't get a music clearance..
ONE final chance at redemption comes in the form of the epilogue with Vanderohe, and, it could have played out the epic revenge scenario, but, alas it was not to be, and he, along with any chance at a sequel, was D.O.A.
So, in conclusion, I don't dislike this movie for it's short comings, but, because of it's unfulfilled potential. It didn't necessarily have to be all happily ever after, but, as you watch it, and the idiocy starts leaking out of the characters, see if you can glimpse the great movie that COULD have been.
Before explaining why I liked this movie, I'd like to point out that the main idea of the movie is NOT that you need find your purpose to have a happy life. It's the exact opposite! I'm not saying this just to be a professor, but because it's really important and that's why I loved the film so much. You don't need to be fixated about something to find a meaning in your life. You need to savour it and learn to enjoy the little moments instead of waiting for something big to happen to reach happiness. It's so profound and refreshing. A movie just about a guy waiting for his big moment and feeling fulfilled after having reached it would have been dull, boring, trite and most of all wrong, like pretty much all "self-help" advices.
Instead the opposite idea is presented and if you just pay attention to the dialogues -and the story, really- you'll understand what I mean and most importantly what you might apply to make your everyday life better.
But back to the movie I've got to say I almost cried as the end was approaching as much as I was going to turn off the tv when the movie started. The whole initial setting reminded me too much of Inside Out, a film I quite disliked, so I was worried it was a copy of it (it kind of is in the beginning). But luckily the second half steered away from it and developed in one of the most moving film I've seen in a long time. Undoubtedly one of Pixar's best.
Once again, the actors doing impressions/playing against type is the best thing the film has going for it.
Jack Black stole the last movie, this time that award goes to Kevin Hart (first two acts) and Awkwafina (final third).
Having said that, the movie that's build around the impression comedy isn't as good, nor fun, as last time.
The story takes the T2 approach of making a sequel, i.e. switch the roles that everyone plays, and keep the story the same.
Unfortunately, the approach can't save the film from its own poor choices regarding the filmmaking.
The action in this is quite poor, to which some people will undoubtedly respond: well, it's supposed to be cheesy.
To be fair, I probably would've given a pass for it if there was an analog charm to it, but I just refuse to do that for lazy, digitized ugliness.
Moreover, the comedy isn't as sharp and witty as it was before.
Surprisingly, there's a lot of reliance on slapstick, which almost makes it feel like this was made for a younger demographic than the last one.
There's not a single scene that matches Karen Gillan's outstanding seduction scene from the previous film.
Also, there's a lot of expository dialogue that shouldn't be there.
Finally, the ending begs for comparisons to Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom , which makes me go: out of anything you could've done, why on earth would you willingly choose to go there?
4.5/10
This has everyone involved play to their strengths. It's another tale of Scorsese deconstructing the myth of the American dream, but with a thematic approach I found quite refreshing for him. The way that the film tackles racism, and how it's tied to issues of money, power, greed, trust and systemic injustice, feels authentic and well constructed. It's a movie that's unsettling and will leave a mark on your brain emotionally, you should know that going in. De Niro has a lot of fun playing a sinister crime boss with a wholesome facade, it's a performance that could be compared to Giancarlo Esposito in Breaking Bad. DiCaprio is always at his best when playing a pathetic dumbass, and he also shines here. It almost feels like he's in Tarantino mode, it's not similar to any of the previous work he's done with Scorsese. Yet, despite both of Scorsese's go-to actors having prominent roles here, it's actually Lily Gladstone who ends up delivering the most emotional, subtle performance. Technically the movie is pretty much flawless. The production design, lighting, cinematography and score are all immaculate, and despite the long running time, Thelma Schoonmaker’s editing kept me engaged for the entire runtime. However, the pacing is still somewhat of an issue. As Scorsese has matured as a filmmaker, the choices he's making are becoming more and more understated. The tracking shots and montages are still here, but they're less energetic and he's relying more on pauses instead. There's nothing wrong with that, given that the substance carries the movie, but with a movie this long I want a little more pop. There's one scene involving fire that'll stay with me, as well as another couple of haunting moments, but besides that he's not turning up the intensity too much. It would've been nice if the movie ended with an extended courtroom scene where all the actors get to really show off with some incredible dialogue, for example. This movie still ends in a pretty weird way, having some creative use of what are essentially ending title cards, but it involves a major tonal shift that didn't work for me. Finally, I thought Brendan Fraser's performance was flat out bad, showing up for a small part and overacting every line. All in all, while I do recommend this movie, I don't think it's a masterpiece. Martin 'this is cinema' Scorsese would probably hate me for saying this, but given the pacing issues, there's an argument to be made it would've worked better as a miniseries.
7/10
Sam Esmail, take a bow. The style, pace, punch and composition of this contemporary cyber thriller is top notch, a film that feels no where near it's 141 minute runtime. Harrowing, darkly humorous and while also being a poignant, cautionary tale, Leave The World Behind is dripping in Sam Esmails signature style while telling an equally depressing, all-too-real story that touches on many themes surrounding the human condition in the modern day, as well as environmentalism and technology reliance. Fantastic movie, I can't wait to watch this one again.
-- Spoiler-filled ramblings below --
I really love the topics that Sam Esmail tackles, and the lens with which he frames them. It's an interesting look at the destabilization of a country after a, worryingly plausible, large scale cyberattack. The movie critiques our over reliance on digital conveniences and champions older, more analogue technologies as a more reliable, persistent alternative. The virtues of physical media, maps, books, vinyls and even candles are pushed to the forefront here, reminding us that our devices are all useless without the power of the network behind them. It also critiques our inability to trust our fellow man due to the digital echo chambers we've built ourselves, and the prejudices these spaces create within us without ever meeting the people it warns us about. Additionally, it shows the younger generations, unheard and toothless (heh) in their protests while being actively ignored by the elders, resorting to over consumption of food, material possessions and media to escape and block out the incoming end of the world. There's also commentary on the environment and pollution, with plastic haphazardly buried under the sand on the beech, and the wildlife encroaching back onto the land we've built our overtly large accommodations on. Still trying to put my finger on why all the rooms in the movie are overly blue, it was garish how much blue was in the first apartment shot and the beach front home that G.H. owned. Great movie, I guess I should buy and read the book now.
Honestly? This is one of the best entries in the Saw saga... and that is saying A LOT, considering the mess that the Saw saga has been.
First, it's a story that follows John Kramer's storyline in it's entirety, focused on his devilish game against a group of con artists that truly deserve what happens to them. (And you can't even try to like these a-holes.)
Tobin Bell proves that the notorious Jigsaw killer has more tricks up his sleeve and shows us his most personal game in the franchise. Amanda Young's return and her dialogues with John are a perfect relief to the grotesque imagery that we have come to recognize in the Saw films, but this time, the effects are better and bloodier. With clever twists, a vicious set of new traps, a surprising antagonist in Synnøve Macody Lund's character and the glorious return of the Zepp theme taken into new hights courtesy of Charlie Clouser's score... Saw X may be a prequel to all the messy sequels that followed the original classic, but Is a promising return to form that has given the saga a new chance to keep the game going.
Also, I feel weird by not feeling bad about ANY of the other characters and their fates in the movie, like, they all could choke for trying to mess with good old' John... but to involve a child in their buffoonery? Electric chair, to all of them. PERIOD.
Rian Johnson is starting to turn into the white Jordan Peele. He's another one of those filmmakers that loves to work in this niche of subversive genre films that include a heavy dose of social commentary, and I'm all here for it. Specifically, with this franchise we’ve gone from satirizing old money with Knives Out to satirizing new money with this new film (chances are Knives Out 3 will center around a group of homeless suspects). Now, a lot of films in that same vein have been released recently (Triangle of Sadness, The Menu), but I think none of them do the satire as well as this film. To me it’s too easy at this point to simply aim your commentary at these people by making a statement about how stupid and incompetent they are. It seems like low hanging fruit to me, because everyone with a brain knows that these types are vapid and contribute nothing to society. Luckily, Rian Johnson understands this too and goes one step beyond that, filtering all of his commentary through this idea of the glass onion. These people aren’t just stupid and incompetent, but they’re using a veil of eccentricity and ‘complexity’ to hide that. This is a brilliant deconstruction that rings very true for today’s society, and of course you can’t quite escape the obvious parallel with Twitter’s manchild CEO firing himself this week. This subtext is woven into a lot of elements of the film (character, location, plot, even some props), which means that some things are a lot dumber and simpler than they appear to be. I think that will annoy some people, but I think it's quite clever. Like the first film, you get a great cast of colourful characters. Some of them are given depth, some of them are just playing funny caricatures. Daniel Craig owns the whole movie again, but Janelle Monáe comes pretty close to outperforming him. Even people like Dave Bautista do a great job, and it’s because Rian Johnson knows how to use these actors despite their limited range. There are plenty of twists you won’t see coming and the filmmaking is again terrific. It looks very cinematic with the blocking, lighting and compositions, and the score feels very 60s (lots of strings, some minor baroque orchestration), which reminded me of The White Lotus and a certain Beatles song. In the end, what puts it over the first film for me is the fact that the tone feels more consistent here. The more tense and dramatic moments of Knives Out didn’t really hit home for me when you have Daniel Craig doing a really campy accent, and this one just fully embraces that it’s a silly comedy. And it’s a great one at that, nearly all the jokes landed for me. Maybe could’ve done with a little less shouting from Kate Hudson, but ok, it makes sense for the character. Probably the most fun movie of the year next to Top Gun: Maverick, and definitely one of the most well constructed.
8/10
Very good in the gore/violence genre. We'll just turn a blind eye to the fact that it seems to be a virus that was already pretty spread, but just suddenly mutated, in millions of persons at once, all over the country, in a matter of hours or maybe even minutes.
Contrary to most zombie-like stories, people here are conscious, they just can't control their very sadistic urges. That makes them smarter, and allows for a main antagonist (the old guy hitting on Kai Ting in the subway) throughout the movie.
It is very violent, but reasonably gory. Yes there is blood, lots of blood, but it's not spraying ridiculously everywhere and quantity is normal for the number of victims. The first attack is very graphic (burning oil thrown at face and skin being peeled of), but that's about it. After that there are some stabbing, but the most graphic violence always happens off screen, no close up on body parts being ripped off or internal organs being removed or other stuff usually depicted in this kind of movie.
The balance is well maintained, managing to be extremely violent without being too ridiculous or too disgusting.
Only intentionally comical part, as a critic surely, is the government intervention, for a little laugh break in the middle.
Another good point in avoiding the genre clichés is that the main characters do not act completely stupid, most of their action are rational and compatible with survival.
Junzhe part is not really interesting until they meet again, the main story is Kai Ting's.
The meeting with the scientist was quite original, bonus points for the babies part. With the (probably mandatory now) jab at people not trusting doctors and fake news.
The ending, with Kai Ting being miraculously [spoiler]immune, even when injected directly[spoiler] but despite that being [spoiler]killed off screen by the military[/spoiler] was a nice final touch.
I've been quite tentative on recent Spike Lee outings, maybe he doesn't have it any more I said.
I watched the trailer for this and knew I had already been proving wrong.
The story of 4 black soldiers who served in Vietnam going back to reclaim many things they lost, love, gold and much more.
While the cast was all excellent, Delroy Lindo as Paul STOLE the show in what is probably his greatest performance.
From the very start you can tell he's a PTSD powder keg ready to explode and boy does he ever.
The hurt, the anger, the bitterness, even the psychosis is on full display as he presents to the audience a truly broken man, if he's not atleast up for an oscar it will be highway robbery.
Chadwick Boseman shines in what is slightly more than a cameo as Stormin Norman.
I'm assuming they shot on location in Vietnam, if not they did a heck of a job recreating vietnam because everything looks very authentic, especially the jungles.
Lastly even though there's not a whole lot of it, the gore effects are SUPERB, there's one scene and you'll know when you see it where someone dies and it's just disgusting yet beautiful at the same time.
The acapella Marvin Gaye soundtrack interwoven with real life solders who wouldn't otherwise get mention was the cherry on top.
Bravo to all involved, Spike Lee is back.
Okay, so Villeneuve really did the impossible. He took the world of the original Blade Runner and expanded it spectacularly, not only in terms of actual world-building but also by providing viewers with new ideas and topics to discuss, which all resulted in a film I loved even more than the original. Going into the film, I never would have expected the main plot line, yet it made complete sense, and raised many questions that relate to the original's debate over replicant humanity that viewers can debate for years to come. Much like the original, 2049 is a very thought-provoking film, and is especially relevant when thinking of our world today. 2049 touches on current issues like climate change, AI, and living in an increasingly digital world, in very clever ways, all while never seeming out of place in the dystopian setting of 2049 LA. I want to say so much more (!!!), but much like the filmmakers wanted, you really should go into this film not knowing any spoilers.
Speaking of this futuristic world, it's stunning. I read one review that said you could watch this whole film on mute and still be engaged, which is true - I've seen the film now 3 times, and really couldn't point out a single scene that wasn't visually engaging. Roger Deakins really went above and beyond, and like everyone is saying, he absolutely deserves an Oscar for this film. The only place, I thought, where 2049 didn't live up to the original, was in terms of the score. If you love soundtracks/scores like I do, don't think that you'll be disappointed by this film's score, just know that it doesn't compete with Vangelis' work on the original. (The sound editing on this film was pretty stellar however).
So overall - Blade Runner 2049 is amazing, and definitely my favorite film of the year. Denis Villeneuve showed how well he can pull off the "human story in a sci-fi film" in Arrival, and he takes this concept even further in 2049. This film is a must watch of 2017, and preferably in IMAX/3D/the largest screen possible!
Disney’s 2019 version of Aladdin provides us with pleasant surprises and a few hiccups along the ride on the magic carpet. Agrabah looks amazing, you totally feel the Arabian vibe and still is a city with more depth then in the original animated movie with more cultures mixed into one. Jasmine has a well written storyline which is not only fitting for the time we live in now, it’s also very in depth and gives her even more of an edge. She truly outshines the animated Jasmine. Mena’s performance is almost identical to the original. Great acting and good looks. Although I was more anticipated for the Genie’s performance, it was Jafar who surprised me, but not always in a good way. I liked this style and Jafar being younger and more appealing. Marwan showed us great acting by letting us feel Jafar truly is dangerous. What I missed though are iconic moments the animated movie showed us like turning into a snake, make genie lift up the castle and being the old poor man who tricks Aladdin into the cave of wonders, which wasn’t all that wonderous to me at all. The feeling of the cave popping up from the sand was something I really missed, the interior though is flawless and well put together. Aladdin started of stronger then it ended but overall, this new adaptation left me ‘Speechless’ thanks to its wonderful cast, set design and refreshing plots.
Has to be in running for the worst Keanu Reeves movie EVER.
I appreciate the fact that he's 50 and looks 35, I was even starting to think he was gonna have like some Matthew Mccona-however the fuck you spell it renaissance with John Wick and that ronin movie, even though Keanu, in his 30 year career has NEVER in my opinion, but a particularly good actor and this movie exposed the hell out of that.
First of all, Keanu was going against his type cast, and watching him trying to be like normal upbeat dad guy and joking with kids and shit came off awkward and forced as hell because he's no good at "emoting".
Second, nobody and I mean nobody believed either of those girls were 15, so suspension of disbelief is already difficult.
Third, usually when you build a villain up for upwards of 45 minutes, they better get a hell off a comeuppance at the end, these bitches got NOTHING, they basically raped and tortured one guy and murdered his friend and got off clean without a scratch on them.
So many holes in this movies as well.
For example, in the final 20 or so minutes, it's revealed he had a gun hidden in some piece of pottery or whatever it was, but for some reason, whenever he got free, he never went for it, opting instead to attempt to strangle them.
His racially ambiguous friend Louis (couldn't tell if he was black or Spanish) does this spiel when he realizes something fucked up is going on about being from Oakland and not taking no shit blah blah and instead of untying Keanu's character, he decides to get all up in arms over some piece of art and ends up dying like a dickhead.
They also said the girls went to every house during the night scene and that nobody in the whole neighborhood was home so he could scream for help all he wants.
I mean you're telling me in an affluent looking neighborhood that there's not one person in their home at all at night during this whole ordeal?
And I hate to just beat this point home, but GOD Keanu reeves was awful, it's bad enough he kept his EXACT john wick look, which made it seem as though he filmed this right after filming wick, but he delivered his lines with as much enthusiasm as a guy getting pulled out of a ménage e trois with 1999 Jennifer Lopez and 2002, fuck, 2015 Monica Bellucci to go home to 2015 Amy Schumer.
And the best part of all of this shit is that no real motivation nor any background are ever given on these 2 girls, why the blonde with the thick accent insists on calling him daddy and acting fucking crazy, why they run around fucking up guys lives, where they come from, how they were able to spy on him, nothing.
A well-intentioned project by a stuntman himself spreading his passion for stunts and giving us a look into this undervalued job. The meta and behind the scenes aspect of the movie is interesting and it has a few impressive stunts that looked pretty hard to accomplish but not nearly enough and nothing that beats any records or anything. I expected an action movie based on the trailers and it's not really an action movie until the third act. It's more about "getting back with her" and if you're not on board with that being the only narrative, it's one hell of a boring watch. Not much of a story really, although it felt good when we finally introduce a villain in the second half.
My biggest criticism is the comedy, it's straight out flat! Ryan Gosling's charm drives every second of this movie (without him this movie is nothing), he's great with the slapstick humor and his timing is excellent but any dialogue that's meant as a joke is so flat. Emily Blunt was ordinary, any actress could have done the role. Great chemistry with Gosling though. The needle drops are all songs everybody loves so it deserves an applaude I guess, a real crowd pleaser. Also, never interrupt Emily Blunt singing again, the woman can sing! The third act redeems it a little with the action but I found it underwhelming overall. Definitely too long.
A small-scale imposter / con man, making the rounds in 1950s New York, gets caught up in something much greater than his usual scam and decides to let it ride, if just to see where he winds up. In this case the answer is Italy, gorgeous vestige of the old world with just a few hints of the modern one, where he's tasked with convincing a flippant trust funder to return from a perpetual, fortune-draining holiday. That mission quickly goes by the wayside, just as soon as he realizes how much easier life is in the lap of luxury, and he merely exacerbates said money-letting as the wealthy playboy's new wingman. When things take a turn for the messy, though, his welcome worn thin and nothing to show for it but bittersweet memories, a panicked string of responses sends the entire comfortable lifestyle into a tailspin.
At its root, Ripley is an example of how fear and rejection can press a normally smart, affable person over the brink into monstrosity, a surprise considering the playful tone of the first act. Matt Damon, still fresh from his breakout in 1997's Good Will Hunting, shows great versatility in the leading role (essential for such a complicated character), smoothly masking that twitch in his eye from all but the viewing audience. It's one of those films where you'll feel wrong about your rooting interest, knowing all along that the guy absolutely does not deserve a happy ending, with the final moments serving as your comeuppance.
First off, the technicals. I have no trepidation in saying this is the technically most impressive movie of 2023. The visuals are sumptuous, some stills are painting worthy. The fisheye lens, the discordant score, the absurdist and beautifully detailed environments...everything is operating at an extremely high level. Special shoutout to the title cards that split up each section of the movie. In particular, that last one will live rent free in my head. The settings are just perfection. From the very first shot of the movie, you know you are in for an audiovisual feast. Secondly, the performances. Really, this movie starts and ends with Emma Stone. In the most competitive year for Best Actress that I can remember, she is the winner. She puts everything into this character, not just from a physicality point of view but also the way that her facial expressions and speech patterns transform throughout Bella's journey. It's definitely centered around her, but the supporting cast does an admirable job (Mark Ruffalo specifically) in tandem with her. Third, the plot. I think, if I were to criticize the movie, this might be the one area. The movie is 2.5 hours long, and it does drag a bit in a few sections. I thought one or two of them could have been slightly tighter to keep the pacing brisk. I am doing this just to nitpick though because the other sections were brilliant, and I absolutely loved them. Finally, themes. This is a movie about liberation, and it tackles it across a variety of different avenues. Seeing Bella's journey of self-discovery was fascinating, and it was equally fascinating to see how often certain elements tried to contain it. Utilizing this madcap version of the world to really accentuate those competing forces worked. This is the best movie of 2023. Just FYI, this is not a movie you see with family. At all. It is explicit. Extremely explicit. And weird. And absurd. And so good.
i'm still a bit confused by a lot of it
if it was all a simulation, then how exactly did their bodies survive in the real world? were they hooked up to some kind of feeding tubes?
how could frank not know where these people were physically? wouldn't it be an insane risk not to find that out just in case?
why did the cover story for the men's jobs have to be so mysterious as to arouse curiosity? wouldn't it have been easier to come up with a more mundane lie to explain what they do for a living and why it's dangerous to go there? like, i dunno, radiation or something?
why did they make it so easy to exit the simulation? one just had to be curious enough to wander into the forbidden zone and touch this building - why didn't they put it further away from the town or hide it in a cave or at least build a fence around it?
what was the deal with the airplane? why did alice see it?
why did they care whether she took her pills in the simulation, when jack could just inject her with anything in real life?
It was undoubtedly very longggggg and pretty boring at times but surprisingly, I was mostly captivated. It is such a horrible tragic true story that is worth knowing and therefore I say take your shot and suffer through it…
The characters actions and reactions are often so stupid and unrealistic that if it were not (supposedly) very close to what really happened, I would say that the writing is terrible and that audiences would never play along. A perfect example of how true stories can be so whacked that they would not fly as fiction.
Mostly good acting and sometimes great but it took me a while to get used to DiCaprio making a constant and incredibly sever frown with his mouth. He and Lily elegantly portray village idiots with depth and finesse. DeNiro plays himself perfectly as a total megalo a-hole. Frazer is scary as heck. Someone needs to cast him as the monster in a new horror franchise.
Anyone know what McDouffus was adding to the insulin? Was Mr. Cob a white dude and did he end up with the headrights? They should have taken a lil fat off the three hours and put it towards meat on the tail end…
This is so bland and inessential, they might’ve as well put it directly on Disney Plus. Why are we investing 300 million dollars in an action/adventure flick starring an 80 year old grandpa? Look I have a lot of respect for Harrison Ford, but everything that’s wrong with this movie is connected to the larger issue of him and the franchise being way past their expiration date, so this never should’ve been greenlit in the first place. Nothing is offensively bad here, but it’s more a case of wrong decisions piling onto each other.
I understand Lucasfilm’s decision to hire a director who just delivered two crowdpleasers in a row, both of which were acclaimed by normies and snobs alike. Mangold understands what makes the world and character work, but he doesn’t get the soul. Right from the opening scene, the movie looks drab, underlit and generic. There’s almost no imagination to the set pieces, and some of the more impressive stuntwork is undone by poor effects work. Take the Tuctuc chase. Ford’s stunt double puts in the work for the wide shots, but when you cut to a close-up of characters in front of a green screen, you’re not exactly selling the sequence. It’s not going to stick on my brain, it’s too unremarkable. Again, what’s the point of making an Indiana Jones movie if there’s no viscera or imagination to the action?
Then there’s the story, which is also very by the numbers and low on risk. It feels like wheel spinning, which in theory could be fine (the Bond franchise got away with that for decades) but there’s nothing to hold my interest. Some of the new mechanics introduced during the third act I found to be underwhelming, and this is coming from someone who didn’t mind the inclusion of aliens in the last film. All of the new characters are boring and underdeveloped (especially the villain), despite the actors putting in decent performances. It’s quite funny how this suffers from the same problem as Furious 7, where villains will show up on the same location as our heroes despite there being no story reason for it. Occasionally there’s a brief fun interaction, or a fun set, or a good visual idea (like the final shot, for example), but that’s not enough to fill its bloated runtime.
4/10
This was a neat film that had me chuckling to myself at several points throughout. Although I haven't read the novel this movie was based on, I heard that it clarified a few things that were not made explicit in the movie. I'll list the big ones here (spoilers):
First off, the "Aunt" in the movie is actually the main protagonist . That's why she knows so much about time leaps and talks about her senior high crush.
The painting is so important to Chiaki because it contains the formula for time travel or is essential to the ultimate discovery of time travel.
The career path that Makato planned to take was either art restoration, so she could preserve and protect the painting, or maybe she went into the sciences to discover the secret to time travel herself.
The second idea seems more likely as the film tried to differentiate her from the Aunt. Instead of sitting around waiting, she would "come running."
Anyways, I thoroughly enjoyed the story but I still think it could have tried to be slightly more explicit in the revelations they were trying to get the audience to perceive. The film was unfortunately designed in a way that makes things more difficult to understand if you were not already aware of the 1967 novel that started the many eventual adaptations. It's worth a look and if you're confused by the end of it, come take a look back here and you might appreciate some of the details of the film a little better.
