This will probably become more beloved than Dune for being a bigger, more action driven film. Personally I prefer the first film by a long shot, but there's a lot to like here. I loved Paul's new journey for this installment as it doesn't develop in the way you'd expect based on the ending of the first film. The themes of colonialism, false prophecies and religion reach a level of depth that cannot be found in other sci-fi/fantasy contemporaries like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars; this film certainly made me understand why this story is taken so seriously as a piece of literature. Despite the source material being so old, there's still something new and refreshing about it. You don't often see major Hollywood productions calling out religion as a manipulative force helping the people in power. On top of that this brilliantly subverts the concept of the hero's journey we've become accustomed to by everything that was in one way or another inspired by Dune. The acting is pretty great, Timothée does a great job at playing the transition Paul goes through. Despite his boyish looks I was sold on his performance as the leader of the Fremen. Rebecca Ferguson and Javier Bardem are also scene stealers. The visuals are once again mindblowing, in terms of set/costume design, cinematography and CGI this is as close to perfection as you could get to right now. The vision and scope of this movie are truly unmatched, which leads to some breathtaking sequences that I'll remember for a while (sandworm ride; the black/white arena fight; knife fight during the third act).
However, for all the praise I have for Dune: Part 2, I think Denis is being uncharacteristically sloppy with this film. First of all, Bautista and Butler feel like they're ripped from a different franchise altogether. Their over the top, cartoonish performances are more suited for something like Mad Max than the nuanced world of Dune. The bigger cracks start to appear when you look at the writing. The brief moments where the movie pokes fun at religious zealots through Javier Bardem's character, while funny, probably won't age very well. Like the first movie, it has a tendency to rely too much on exposition and handholding, a problem which might be worse here. I feel like a lot of the subtlety is lost in order to make the movie more normie proof, and that's quite annoying for a movie with artistic ambitions like this one. For example, there's this scene where Léa Seydoux seduces Austin Butler's character, and everything you need to know as a viewer is communicated through Butler's performance. Cut to the next scene, where Seydoux is all but looking at the camera saying "he's a psychopath, he's violent, he wants power, etc.". I just feel like compared to Villeneuve's precise work on Blade Runner 2049, he's consciously dumbing it down here. It's understandable and somewhat excusable for a complex story like Dune, but he occasionally takes it too far for my liking. Then there's the love story subplot between Chani and Paul, which almost entirely misses the mark for me. It feels rushed, there's no chemistry between the actors and some of the lines are painfully cheesy. Because of that, the emotional gutpunch their story eventually reaches during the third act did little for me. Finally, I'm a little dissatisfied with the use of sound. I loved the otherworldly score Zimmer came up with for the first Dune, however this film is so ridiculously bombastic and low-end heavy that it starts to feel like a parody of his work with Christopher Nolan. For the final action beat of the film Villeneuve cuts out the film's score, and it becomes all the more satisfying for it.
Overall, I recommend this film, however maybe temper those expectations if you're expecting a masterpiece. There's a lot to admire, but it's flawed.
6.5/10
We've kinda come full circle with these superhero films when you think about it.
After the camp of the 90s, directors like Nolan and Singer reset the tone of superhero movies in the 2000's to something that was more grounded and serious, which in turn laid a lot of the groundwork for the MCU.
Here we have Taika Waititi providing a throwback to the Joel Schumacher days.
If that's your thing you'll probably dig it, but it's definitely not my brand of camp.
I’m not exactly a Thor: Ragnarok fan (nor the other two Thor films). I don’t have a problem with its silly tone, because I’m not a manchild who needs to see his childhood validated, but a lot of its comedy didn’t click with me (even after a rewatch). Everything that didn’t work for me in that film is amped up to an eleven here.
There are some serious points in it where the acting choices, slapstick/childish/hokey comedy, overly bright colors, gay undertones, overdesigned costumes (no nipples yet, but give Taika another film and we'll see what happens) and godawful music choices started to give me genuine flashbacks to stuff like Batman Forever, not quite the thing you want to remind me of.
It's not a complete disaster; the performances by Natalie Portman, Tessa Thompson and especially Christian Bale are generally quite good. I'm also glad Marvel seems to have definitively found the saturation button back after Guardians 2, even if the framing/lighting with the visuals remains uninspired and maintains a general level of artifice that makes it look like shit. I believe they used the volume stages for most of the production, and like Obi Wan or The Book of Boba Fett, it’s very noticeable for most of the runtime.
The story's not all that interesting and makes no sense when you put any thought into it, but that's fine given that there is some progression with most of the main characters, even if Thor’s character arc throughout the MCU is all over the place at this point. As with most Marvel films lately, there is a lot of unnecessary exposition (e.g. the Korg narrated flashbacks are really clunky), but where it really drops the ball for me is with the balancing of tone and plot elements. I already thought that the darker stuff in Thor: Ragnarok didn't blend that well with the goofy scenes on the trash planet, but there's even more tonal whiplash here. Christian Bale is giving this excellent, terrifying performance, but he's not in the same movie as Chris Hemsworth, who's playing even more of a Thor parody than he was in Avengers: Endgame. One moment we're invested in this heavy, emotional story with Natalie Portman, and then we cut back to a goofy love triangle between Thor, his hammer and his axe. It's an unbalanced mess without a sense of stakes.
I also don't know what it is with Taika's comedy in these films, because I think What we do in the shadows, Jojo Rabbit and Hunt for the wilderpeople are all very comedic and smart, but for some reason he really likes his Thor movies excessive and dumb. Screaming goats aren't funny to me, they're a dated meme at best. Maybe it's because Taika can't go edgy and niche with the jokes here, but fuck I really hate his sensibilities for this character.
In short, another major misfire from Marvel if you ask me. I pretty much disliked everything except for a few of the performances. Please go back to making indies Taika, and for the love of god: let James Gunn pick the soundtrack for your next film. Even a film this dumb doesn’t need a Guns ‘N Roses needle drop, let alone four of them.
3/10
The cynical side of me wants to call this Everything, everywhere all at once for consoomers.
The optimistic side of me sees Kevin Feige finally pushing the boundaries of his own franchise.
I guess it’s a little bit of both in the end.
Undoubtedly, the best thing the movie has going for it is the Sam Raiminess of it all. His fingerprints are all over it; you’re getting the weird camera angles, camp, his sense of horror, etc. It definitely has more style than some other Marvel movies, though there's also still some of the usual blandness. I'll give it to Marvel for putting in a scene where a talking corpse gives a heartfelt, sentimental speech. There's more of a psychedelic feel to it than the first film, but every time it tends to get really interesting it feels like Raimi's being reigned it to adhere to Marvel's demands. Elizabeth Olsen and Benedict Cumberbatch are giving some of their best performances as these characters to date, and the music’s really well done. But ultimately the film’s Achilles heel is its own script, which is complete junk. The story is thin, messy, nonsensical, and at times flat out embarrassing. The set-up in the first act is very rushed, while the second and third act feel like they’re written by a Reddit fanpage (you just know for a fact that Marvel only went in this direction because of the 2 Batmen that have been announced for The Flash). It’s Marvel at its most ‘producty’, and it’s going to trick a lot of people into thinking the film is better than it is. Regardless, I hope Patrick Stewart got a big paycheck for ruining his own perfect send-off in Logan at the very least. A lot of the story beats don’t make sense either, with most of the characters arcs feeling rushed and nonsensical, even despite the copious amounts of exposition that are desperately trying to tie everything together. The choices made with Wanda in the third act are baffling, and I still don’t know what the takeaway is supposed to be by the end of the film. Her motivation is problematic in general, and I don’t like the use of the [insert plot device] corrupts the mind of the villain trope, which is becoming very overused in the MCU (Ant-Man, Winter Soldier) and just a lazy way of forcing a conflict where the villain stays redeemable. The new character (America Chavez) is a boring, underdeveloped plot device, while Strange himself doesn't even have a real arc. It's the kind of film where a lot happens, but very little leaves an actual impression. I’m not sure what happened, but I get the impression that a significant portion of this film was reworked and rewritten during post production. The action didn’t impress me whatsoever, but that’s been a case with these films for a while now (some of the stuff in Shang-Chi excluded). Some of the visuals look tacky and unfinished, the action’s a bunch of people shooting flashing lights at each other, shots don’t linger enough, people move like animated characters, it’s all the usual bs (and this is coming from someone who thinks the action and effects in the first one are still underappreciated to this day). Inbetween the first film and the sequel, Marvel has become a machine that’s now collapsing under its own pressure. If Disney would allow it, they really should go back to making 2-3 properties a year. The consistent mediocrity of their current output is killing their own longevity.
4/10
Oh, and your kids will be fine watching this. I’ve seen some uproar about the ‘horror’ and violence of the film, and it’s honestly not that shocking. There’s way more creepy stuff in some of the Harry Potter and Indiana Jones films (or just your average 80’s kids film in general).
A potentially great film being held hostage by its PG-13 rating and its messy, all over the places screenwriting.
By PG-13 I don't simply mean its visuals/goriness, but most importantly its dialogues, themes, and storytelling it tries to raise. Let me explain.
First, the dialogues.
The film opens with murder and Batman narrating the city's anxious mood. We get a glimpse of noir in this scene, but it soon falls flat due to a very uninteresting, plain, forgettable choice of words Batman used in his narration. Mind you, this is not a jab at Pattinson - Pattinson delivered it nicely. But there is no emotion in his line of words - there is no adjectives, there is no strong feelings about how he regards the city full of its criminals.
Here's a line from the opening scene. "Two years of night has turned me to a nocturnal animal. I must choose my targets carefully. It's a big city. I can't be everywhere. But they don't know where I am. When that light hits the sky, it's not just a call. It's a warning to them. Fear... is a tool. They think I am hiding in the shadows. Watching. Waiting to strike. I am the shadows." Okay? Cool. But sounds like something from a cartoon. What does that tell us about you, Batman?
Compare this to a similar scene uttered by Rorschach in Watchmen. "The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood. And when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. All those liberals and intellectuals, smooth talkers... Beneath me, this awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children, and the night reeks of fornication and bad consciences." You can say that Rorschach is extremely edgy (he is), but from that line alone we can tell his hatred towards the city, and even more so: his perspective, his philosophy that guides him to conduct his life and do what he does.
Rorschach's choice of words is sometimes verbose, but he is always expletive and at times graphic, making it clear to the audience what kind of person he is. Batman in this film does not. His words are always very safe, very carefully chosen, which strikes as an odd contrast to Pattinson's tortured portrayal of Batman as someone with a seemingly pent up anger. His choice of words is very PG-13 so that the kids can understand what Batman is trying to convey.
And this is not only in the opening scene. Throughout the film, the dialogues are written very plainly forgettable. It almost feels like the characters are having those conversations just to move the plot forward. Like that one encounter between Batman and Catwoman/Selina when she broke into the house to steal the passport or when Selina asked to finish off the "rat". They flow very oddly unnatural, as if those conversations are written to make them "trailer-able" (and the scenes indeed do appear on the trailer).
Almost in all crucial plot points the writers feel the need to have the characters to describe what has happened, or to explictly say what they are feeling - like almost every Gordon's scene in crime scene, or Selina's scene when she's speaking to Batman. It feels like the writers feel that the actors' expression just can't cut it and the audience has to be spoonfed with dialogues; almost like they're writing for kids.
Second, the storytelling.
Despite being a film about vengeance-fueled Batman (I actually like that cool "I'm vengeance" line) we don't get to see him actually being in full "vengeance" mode. Still in the opening we see Batman punching some thugs around. That looks a little bit painful but then the thugs seem to be fit enough to run away and Batman let them be. Then in the middle of the film we see Batman does something similar to mafias. Same, he just knocked them down but there's nothing really overboard with that. Then eventually in the car chase scene with the Penguin, Batman seem to be on "full rage mode", but over... what? He was just talking to Penguin a moment ago. The car chase scene itself is a bit pointless if not only to show off the Batmobile. And Batman did nothing to the Penguin after, just a normal questioning, not even harsher than Bale's Batman did to Heath's Joker in The Dark Knight - not in "'batshit insane' cop" mode as Penguin put it.
Batman's actions look very much apprehensive and controlled. Nothing too outrageous. Again, at odds with Pattinson's portrayal that seem to be full of anger; he's supposed to be really angry but somehow he still does not let his anger take the best of him. The only one time he went a bit overboard that shocked other characters is when he kept punching a villain near the end of the film. But even then it's not because his anger; it's because he injected some kind of drug (I guess some adrenaline shot). A very safe way to drop a parent-friendly message that "drug is bad, it can change you" in a PG-13 film.
And all that supposed anger... we don't get to see why he is angry and where his anger is directed at. Compare this to Arthur Fleck in Joker where it is clear as sky why Arthur would behave the way the does in the film. I mean we know his parents' death troubled him, but it's barely even discussed, not even in brief moments with Alfred (except in one that supposedly "shocking" moment). So... where's your vengeance, Mr. Vengeance? And what the hell are you vengeancing on?
Speaking of "shocking" moment... this is about the supposed Wayne family's involvement in the city's criminal affairs that has been teased early in the film. Its revelation was very anticlimactic: the supposed motive and the way it ended up the way it is, all very childish. If the film wanted the Wayne to be a "bad person", there's a lot of bads that a billionaire can do: tax evasion, blood diamond, funding illegal arms trade, fending off unions, hell, they can even do it the way the Waynes in Joker did it: hints of sexual abuses. But no, it has to be some bloody murder again, and all for a very trivial reason of "publicity". As if the film has to make it clear to the kids: "hey this guy's bad because he killed someone!" Which COULD work if the film puts makes taking someone's life has a very serious consequence. But it just pales to the serial killing The Riddler has done.
Even more anticlimactic considering how Bruce Wayne attempted to find a resolve in this matter only takes less than a 5 minute scene! It all involves only a bit of dialogues which boils down to how Thomas Wayne has a good reason to do so. Bruce somehow is convinced with that and has a change of heart instantly, making him looks very gullible.
And of course the ending is very weak and disappointing. First, Riddler's final show directly contradicts his initial goal to expose and destroy the corrupt elites. What he did instead is making the lives of the poor more difficult, very oxymoron for someone supposed to be as smart as him.
Second, the way Batman just ended up being "vengeance brings nothing and I should save people more than hurting people" does not get enough development to have him to say that in the end. Again - where's your vengeance? And how did you come to such character development if nothing is being developed on? And let's not get to how it's a very safe take against crime and corruption that closely resembles Disney's moralistic pandering in Marvel Cinematic Universe film.
Last, the visuals.
I'm not strictly speaking about gore, though that also factors in the discussion. The film sets this up as a film about hunting down a serial killer. But the film barely shows how cruel The Riddler can be to his victims. Again, back to the opening scene: we get it, Riddler killed the guy, but it does not look painful at all as it looks Riddler just knocked him twice. The sound design is very lacking that it does not seem what The Riddler done was conducted very painfully. Riddler then threw away his murder weapon, but we barely see blood. Yet when Gordon arrived to the crime scene, he described the victim as being struck multiple times with blood all over. What?
Similarly, when Riddler forced another victim to wear a bomb in his neck. The situation got pretty tense, but when the bomb eventually blow off, we just got some very small explosion like a small barrel just exploded, not a human being! I mean I'm not saying we need a gory explosion with head chopped off like in The Boys, but it does not look like what would happen if someone's head got blown off. Similarly when another character got almost blown off by a bomb - there's no burnt scar at all.
Why the hell are they setting up those possibly gory deaths and scars if they're not going to show how severe and painful these are? At least not the result - we don't need to see blood splattered everywhere - just how painful the process is. Sound design and acting of the actors (incl. twitching, for example) would've helped a lot even we don't see the gore, like what James Franco did in The 127 Hours or Hugh Jackman in Logan. In this film there's almost no tense at all resulting from those.
I'm not saying this film is terrible.
The acting, given the limited script they had, is excellent. Pattinson did his best, so did Paul Dano (always likes him as a villain), Zoe Kravitz, and the rest. Cinematography is fantastic; the lighting, angle, everything here is very great that makes a couple of very good trailers - perhaps one could even say that the whole film trades off coherency for making the scenes "trailer-able". The music is iconic, although with an almost decent music directing. And I guess this detective Batman is a fresh breath of air.
But all that does not make the movie good as in the end it's still all over the places and very PG-13.
Especially not with the 3 hours runtime where many scenes feel like a The Walking Dead filler episode.
If you're expecting a Batman film with similar gritty, tone to The Dark Knight trilogy or Joker, this film is not for you. But if you only want a live-action cartoon like pre-Nolan Batmans or The Long Halloween detective-style film, well, I guess you can be satisfied with this one.
Look, I'm very much in favor of giving directors the creative freedom to put their own spin on whatever they're adapting.
In fact, I think it's quite shallow and close-minded to judge an adaptation against its source material, pretending as if that's meant to be some holy grail of perfection.
That being said: the whole appeal of the Uncharted games in the first place is that they feel like a mix of Indiana Jones and Mission Impossible, with this sassy, horny, shit-talking protagonist at the center of it.
This movie captures neither of those aspects, and replaces them with basic movie tropes.
It doesn't feel like the aforementioned franchises. Instead, it looks and feels like your generic, throwaway action movie that usually stars The Rock (e.g.Rampage, Red Notice, Skyscraper).
Tom Holland plays Spider-man with attitude. He's not playing (a younger version of) Nathan Drake.
Mark Wahlberg plays Mark Wahlberg.
Like, why was this project treated like a tax write-off?
It has everything a Hollywood executive could want: the source material is cinematic, action packed, fun, and best of all: it has a built in audience.
This could've easily been the next big summer franchise if this was given a proper treatment. It should be much easier to get this right than other videogame based adaptations.
So why is Avi Arad producing this? Why is Ruben Fleischer directing this? Why is this script burning through four games of material? Why is the dialogue so clunky and unfunny? Why is the casting so lame? Why does it look like plastic, when the cinematographer of this thing shot Last Night in Soho and Oldboy?
Fuck.
3.5/10
"San Andreas" was just as big and stupid as I thought it would be. It reminded me of every other big disaster film of the last decade or so. You know, "The Day After Tomorrow", "2012", "Dante's Peak", that type of deal. But for as corny and predictable as this movie was, I was totally entertained.
Somehow, Dwayne Johnson's character was able to fly around in a rescue helicopter and actually save no one. Well, other than his wife and daughter. Anyone else caught along the entire crumbling California coast was toast, because Dwayne wasn't saving them. But then, who can blame him. He's married to Carla Gugino. I'd take the straightest line possible, too.
I found myself feeling a bit guilty for a moment or two about how much I was getting a charge out of the total carnage. Skyscrapers toppled, the ground split open and swallowed up whole suburbs and neighborhoods. And then to top if all off, look out for the Tsunami! Freighters and battleships were no match for Nature's wrath, as they were washed up over the Golden Gate bridge and into San Francisco, left hanging precariously from shattered buildings.
But Mother Nature herself was no match for The Rock. Anything in his way. Anything falling from above or falling out from under him was merely delaying his inevitable success in saving his family. It had me in stitches. I was laughing and shouting, "Hell Yeah, Dwayne!!!"
Why is this BDSM fairy tale of 50 Shades would not work in real life?
BDSM life style is not made out of the blue. It is about people who have tried the vanilla life style and finding out that it would never work out for them. It is sneaking into other people's bedrooms and judging them for what they do.
The reasons why 50 shades never work are many, but the following are my own why these 50 shades of fucked up would never actually work in real life..
1- Anastasia Stelle is nothing but an inexperienced virgin who has never been in a real relationship in her life. People who have seek BDSM relationship are people who have tried and never been successful into being in a normal or what the community would call vanilla relationship. They have seek and never been able to achieve their satisfaction by being into a "normal" relationship or at least what society have been telling them what a relationship should be about.
2- Through out the movie, the relationship was about satisfying Mr. Grey, but in a real BDSM relationship the dominant is all about satisfying the submissive other than the other way around. Being the dominant in the relationship is all about the satisfaction of the submissive before seeking the satisfaction of oneself. Like any other relationship it is about both parties getting what they wanted out of it.
3- The BDSM motto has always been Safe, sane, and consensual, most of self respecting BDSM life style would ban the use of alcohol cause in more than one way it dulls the senses. The person who should enter in such a relationship should have a complete ownership of his or her senses. Which through out the movie was untrue.
The character of Anna Steele enters the relationship to satisfy Mr. Grey which in most of BDSM relationships is not the case.
The case of such relationship is like any other, it is all about the satisfaction. What one party would be by giving up and the other party would be taking, Control.
However, the movie was all about the relinquishing of that control to satisfy the other party which is not what a healthy relationship should be about.
The BDSM community was in a twist cause they have reconsigned that this relationship was built on a not so equal grounds. Both the parties in such relationship would relish on the feeling that they are both getting what they needed, something which the movie has obviously shown to be not the case.
I did not like it. It showed a relationship that was based on the fact that a single party is getting what they want on the expense of the other's misery. Which is a text book of an unhealthy relationship.
I found the movie to be an unhealthy commercial of something that the community regards to be a taboo. It was made to show what everyone was expecting to be an orthodox relationship.
Anyone of us who decided to be with someone they make their own rules whether we share it with the community or not, it is an unbinding contract that we hold to one another..
Another thing that this movie has grossly and utterly ignore..
I am disappointed and not impressed..
Absolutely unoriginal and boring. Incredible special effects.
None of the new characters have enough time or backstory for us to care about them, but they're also not throw away characters - the writers seemed to think we would be too triggered if a single good guy died. In fact, nobody died the entire movie - 100% of the enemies are bots. There aren't even meaningful interactions with agents outside of the ones Neo simulates.
The entire thing was just a big callback to what they did in the original trilogy. Lots of allusion and direct rips. All with killer special effects, but no substance. They think they're being meta and hip by acknowledging it, but that doesn't make it better; their horrible post credits scene about "just needing to elicit an emotional response" and "uploading the catrix" makes it a lot worse.
Nothing in the movie has any deeper meaning. There are zero stakes. The new human city isn't at risk. The Matrix isn't at risk. Literally the entire movie is about Neo and Trinity needing to wake up and get out of the Matrix - if they don't, they will continue living, just inside the Matrix.
None of Smith's motives were clear. He went from being a very strong and interesting character in the original trilogy to a very weak and aimless character here.
Cheapening the power of the One is really detrimental to the film. The Analyst's idea that "Neo was nothing special by himself, he needed Trinity" is ridiculous. It's rather as the Architect said "Neo's attachment to humanity was very intimate." He was still the One with or without Trinity, and his powers were unique to that position. So the idea that the machines can somehow use Neo and Trinity to enhance power generation of the Matrix by keeping them close is both fundamentally flawed on top of being ridiculous. And then letting Trinity be the one to fly them out of danger at the end just steals everything from Neo.
Despite everyone assuring Neo that his fight mattered, it seems that the world is almost identical to where it was at the start of the original Matrix movie. The Matrix is a prison. The humans are hiding in a city to keep back the hostile machines. It doesn't seem like they're freeing many minds. The only difference is that now some machines are on their side - something that's never really explained. This new alliance has yielded the incredible result of.. fruit. Neo's entire fight gave humanity fruit. That's it.
The Analyst and the machines seemed incompetent and weak. The machine on machine violence was very interesting and could have been instrumental in explaining the resurgence in war and restoration of the Matrix as a prison - so naturally it was only mentioned once offhand.
The world wasn't setup clearly or interestingly in a way to support a story existing within it. There is no substance, no stakes, and no point.
Overall it's a huge disappointment. The fact that the Reloaded and Revolutions were better movies that were more coherent and added more substance to the universe is testament to the extreme failure of this move.
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
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!
This is by far one of the best, if not the best movie about the creation of both Apple and Microsoft and is essential viewing for any tech enthusiast or IT person as it gives you a great and accurate insight into the start of both companies.
The portrayal by both Noah Wyle (Steve Jobs) and Anthony Michael Hall (Bill Gates) was flawless as after watching footage of both Jobs and Gates at the time I can say at some points I forgot I was watching a movie and almost felt like a documentary how accurate they portrayed both these real-life legends, also they don't shy away to show that Steve Jobs wasn't a very nice person and Bill Gates is maybe a person you shouldn't trust in any way at the time. Also need to give a shout out to both John DiMaggio (Steve Balmer) and Joey Slotnick (Steve Wozniak) who both narrate a large portion of the film and once again do justice to both of these real-life figures.
Now the film is a little flawed because it was a made for TV film by TNT and you can tell it had a very small budget, but for what it's worth they tell the story really well with such a small budget and I would love to see a director like Adam McKay redirect this film with a bigger budget but keep the exact same story.
Otherwise, I urge you to give this film a watch and get ready to learn the true story of how the computer world as we know it was created.
P.S. If you work for TNT, please beg them to remaster this film if possible.
Not as solid as I hoped. It's confusing for sure, but they could have done so so much more with this concept and world. But they didn't. It has left us with a story that is interesting, yet unrelatable. Things move way too fast and I would have preferred a longer runtime because it is that intriguing. And while the ending is great, the way that Nolan tries to merge the two viewpoints isn't done well. Leaving me feeling like my dad when he watches Transformers (2007) and asks who is who.
It needed to be simplified a little more because everything else is amazing. The effects, the overarching story, the acting. The music, however, is terrible and overblown to give a sense of action when there isn't enough happening. The only part where it worked well was in the final fight, but even then it needed to be quieter.
The cinematography is good as always, but I feel it is lacking compared to Nolan's previous work.
When it comes to action and the draw to this movie, the reversal shots. They deliver, but they are too and far between. It gives us great scenes of reversal action, then one drawn-out segment at the end that doesn't feel rewarding as like I said before, it isn't merged well.
This movie may grow on me more after a second viewing, but it left me in a state that I don't wish to see it again any time soon. It is not fun enough to see again, it is not engaging enough to associate and learn from. Something that Nolan has done well at in the past is his ability to leave questions with the audience after they finish his films. Here, it just provides answers and left me unsatisfied in that regard.
7/10
As far as I am concerned this is the ONLY version of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice that exists. That other thing that Warner Bros. released in theatres is good but isn't a patch on what Snyder originally created. Snyder took an awful lot of flack for the theatrical release, but whatever you think about him as a film maker, you will have sympathy for him once you see how the studio took a hacksaw to his movie. This Ultimate Edition isn't simply another scene or two which adds 30 minutes but doesn't change the movie, it is a sprinkling of expansions to scenes throughout that solve its much maligned choppiness and lack of flow. Apart from the improved editing which allowed the film to breathe, this version of the movie makes you care about the characters more, especially Superman. Following the journey of Clarke Kent in more detail, seeing him actually do some investigative journalism, and understanding his motivations makes a huge difference. This is especially the case in his death at the end of the movie. Without earlier shots of him doing "Superman" things such as helping people after the Capitol Building bomb, as was the case in the theatrical release, I simply didn't care when he died. With the added tidbits in the Ultimate Edition, Supermans sacrifice brought me to floods of tears. Even though I knew what was coming, the gut punch was overpowering! This character expansion also benefited his nemesis Lex Luthor, who with just a few additional scenes (that he isn't even necessarily in), transforms from a spoilt brat into a criminal mastermind. While it was previously suspected, it now becomes clear that he has his fingerprints on everything, from the Africa scene by blackmailing the witness, to intercepting Wallace Keefe's cheques from Bruce Wayne, and Keefe himself being an unknowing puppet of Luthor carrying a bomb in the led lined wheelchair so Superman couldn't see it. Overall, my recommendation if you haven't seen Batman V Superman yet, or if you saw it in the theatres and hated it, is to give this version a watch. I loved it.
The story of Chuck Wepner needed to be told and it needed to be told in the this more realistic way rather than the bleached and neatly folded Rocky which is based on his life – yes Mr Stallone it really is and it is really obvious.
It’s difficult to make a film about a selfish a-hole but make you feel sorry for him, make him sympathetic but director Phillippe Falardeau has done this along with the not inconsiderable talents of Liev Schreiber. In his hands, Chuck appears to be aggressive and definitely in love with fame throughout the film. Not the greatest of attributes in a person but somehow during the running time you don’t think ‘Chuck is a dick I’m glad this is happening to him’. You can sympathise with Chuck but equally, you feel full empathy for his first wife Phyliss and his daughter Kimberley as they traversed the waters of the hurricane known as Chuck Wepner before they finally abandoned ship.
The look and feel of the seventies, spliced in with genuine footage is spot on without looking stagey or false and the idea of the protagonist’s spoken narrative whips the story along at a pace. After all, a lot of Chuck’s later life must have been an utter blur and no one who was there can probably remember it.
It is a truism to say there is nothing new in The Bleeder that you haven’t seen before, many celluloid characters have tripped down the path of excess that leads to ruin. This story is true and doesn’t too clean and sanitised for its screen outing. It has an interesting take on jail-time too and the ‘scales falling from his eyes’ moment is handled without much fanfare and did not neatly wrap up the story in happily ever after but told the truth of how these situations can play out.
Husband and wife team Schreiber and Watts real-life chemistry easily transfers to the film and the whole story is better for it and further to this, the easy chemistry between Elizabeth Moss and Schreiber makes the story much more believable from the start and helps to draw into the story. Schreiber is the main star and figure and his shoulders take the strain easily he is supported in his endeavour with some consummate ease by reliable stalwarts Ron Perlman, Jim Gaffigan and Michael Rapaport it’s an enjoyable ensemble.
This film must have been a labour of love for Liev Schreiber as he had a finger in nearly all the pies, starring, writing and producing and that love for the story, for the fragile human at the centre shows through. There’s no judgment of his ways, of his idiocy and throughout Chuck’s highs and lows., The Bleeder shows the simple honesty humanity of all the main characters. This is a film more people should see, this is a film Liev Schreiber should be proud of.
Sometimes life is like a movie. And sometimes it’s better.
Note: I watched both versions on Netflix - a black-and-white print with narration and the colour print with a soundtrack by Air. This review will cover both.
So here I am at what is undoubtedly Georges Méliès' most famous and enduring film, even if its status as his "best" is open to debate. It's not difficult to see why - while the films have gradually been increasing in complexity and length, this is a clear step-up from anything previously released. The story follows a group of astronomers led by Professor Barbenfouillis as they prepare for and execute a voyage to the moon. Upon arrival, they begin to explore and discover a native race, the Selenites, a number of whom are killed by the Professor. They are captured, escape and beat a hasty retreat to their craft. Once safely back on Earth, they receive a warm welcome and a parade. The unfortunate Selenite that managed to grab onto the craft is rendered captive on display.
It's nothing groundbreaking, story-wise, nor should it be. It's all about the spectacle of the trip, and every section of the film has something utterly distinctive about it. There's a tremendous sense of wonder throughout, of discovery, and notwithstanding the fact that the party of astronomers represent a murderous invading force it's exhilarating to accompany them.
There are so many iconic images throughout, and the sets are beautifully designed and painted. For such short films, occasionally a Méliès short can seem overstuffed, relying on chaos and mayhem to entertain but there's an economy of story and a clear flow from beginning to end.
The two versions have something to recommend each. The black-and-white version is slightly shorter but a touch clearer and there's much more of a sense of what's going on. Unfortunately, it's burdened with some tiresome narration. The colour version is interesting and looks much more fantastical for obvious reasons - the moon in particular. The Air soundtrack is neither here nor there; I didn't feel like it added much to the overall experience but that might change on repeat viewings.
You don't need me to tell you that this is one of the most important films in history, and for reasons that are countless, but I'll reiterate it anyway. It's fantastic.
This movie shows in a very good way how the next virus outbreak that will be just as big or maybe even bigger as the Spanish Flu is gonna happen in the 21th century. And believe me, sooner or later IT WILL HAPPEN.
I liked the electronic music that was playing at the beginning of the movie. It had sort of an panicked tone to it that together with the people who where getting sick and dying set a thrilling tone to the first part of the movie.
I found the movie to be very realistic. Jude Law character was spot-on. When there is gonna be an outbreak we will see people on the internet (who have no medical training whatsoever) who think they have found the cure and millions of people will listen to them. There will be millions of people who stop going to work, who stay at home and avoid contact with anyone. Others will do whatever they can to get their hands on a vaccination, even if that means killing someone else.
I liked the fact that we got to see the story from so many different angles. It really gave an overview of the entire situation and what the virus had for an impact on all the people involved.
The end of the movie was a bit disappointing. In my opinion that could have been a lot better. But overall i find this movie to be really good.
Blade Runner is one of the more gaping holes in the list of films I haven’t seen (or at least, don’t remember well enough to talk about). Yesterday’s viewing of The Martian got me thinking about Ridley Scott’s past work so here I am.
I really should have done this sooner.
L.A. 2019, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is a ‘Blade Runner’ - a policeman whose sole purpose is to hunt and kill replicants; machines almost indistinguishable from humans, yet banned from Earth. Four have been detected on the planet so he is called up to hunt and kill them.
Scott’s dystopian LA draws you in and holds you captive for 2 hours. This is a masterfully shot, timeless, beautiful piece of work. Every single frame is a work of art. The visual effects are not only highly effective, but incredibly creative and unique; never has anything like this been made before or since.
The plot is simple, one man chases another. However it’s driven almost entirely by its central themes; what is it to be human? Who deserves to live or die? Are we responsible for the things we create? What happens when our creations surpass us? All of these questions go unanswered, yet Scott somehow revels in the ambiguity.
Decker is a blank canvas of a character. The replicants he is chasing are complex, unique individuals. It’s no accident that Rutger Hauer plays the most human character in the film. His is the stand-out performance here, if only for the closing monologue.
Still fresh & still relevant, Blade Runner is indeed a modern masterpiece.
http://benoliver999.com/film/2015/10/31/bladerunner/
Like a long day at the beach, nothing at all happens, but the people watching is golden. Mektoub, My Love: Canto Uno is a voyeuristic cross between Blue is the Warmest Color and American Honey, and I wrote that before learning the director of Mektoub (Abdellatif Kechiche) is the same as Blue…
Why is this film 3 hours long? Because Kechiche doesn't know the meaning of the word ‘cut’. But this is just as well because if you cut this story, then it's only another day at the beach. If you make it longer, however, it becomes more real and that length gives it the gravitas it deserves.
What I don't understand, though, is this: this movie is 3 hours long and nothing happens in it, so how was I never bored? The best answer I can come up with was that I recognized everyone on the screen as, for the most part, being a part of me. There is someone for everyone in this poem to humanity.
Despite its length, the film doesn't take time but the director does, which gives him the space to display an intricate web of social connections as subtle as they fragile, and this web he weaves entraps the viewers before enveloping them.
Mektoub is not for those who want to see something happen on the screen, it's for those who want to see everything happen on the screen.
