On the surface this film is about a group of people who have been labelled “villains”, working together to save the world. But really, this film is about one man and one man alone, he isn’t strong, but yet he defies all odds and sacrifices his life to save his friends. His only power is his bravery, he is the driver of the van and the main character of this film, Milton.
Barbenheimer: Part 2 of 2
This was never going to be a your average summer blockbuster given the incredibly overqualified cast and crew involved. However, having just finished it, I am still blown away by how far they pushed it. Is it too highbrow and intellectual for its own good? Maybe, I don't see this gaining universal praise from the general audience, but I'd say that's a good thing. I have yet to come across an accurate read of this film by the online outrage economy (or middle aged nerdy Youtube critics, for that matter), so perhaps it's not as preachy or on the nose as thought by some. This thing is directed with such vision and precision, for my money it's the boldest blockbuster I've seen in a long time. Gerwig and her team truly knock it out of the park here: the set design for Barbieland is amazing and colorful (the shitty lighting and lack of liquids are great touches), the campy-yet-sincere humor feels very fresh, there are interesting references to filmmakers like Jacques Tati and Wes Anderson, it has razor sharp commentary and so many memorable scenes. The script feels well read and clever, taking its obvious influences (The Truman Show, The Lego Movie, Toy Story and Elf, to name a few) in a different direction than what's expected. It proves that you can still use meta and self-referential tropes as long as they're executed tastefully. It's also brewing with themes and subtext, trusting the viewer to read between the lines and find the detailed nuances in the script (well, for the most part). Will Ferrell doesn't even serve a real narrative purpose, but conceptually he makes the film a lot more interesting. During the third act it occasionally starts to spell things out a little too much through clunky monologues, which I'd argue is its only real flaw. Besides that, I thought this was a blast. Robbie, Gosling and Ferrera all deliver nuanced, funny and at times emotional performances, there's not a single dull moment and it's one of the rare blockbusters where the production value actually shows up on the screen. Major props to Robbie and Gerwig as producers for getting it made, I almost can't believe some of this stuff survived Mattel’s pr division as well as the Hollywood system.
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!
I am a huge fan of the inventive yet simple first film. It is a guilty pleasure of a film that includes giant robots and monsters, but has enough development of characters that I have something to latch onto. It also helps that Del Toro's imagination helps build not only some fantastic beasts, but a great world to have the action focus on.
This sequel, while almost stand alone, doesn't have as much in any of those departments. The characters are pretty flat. The relationships between the characters are barely developed (like between Pentecost and Lambert, or Pentecost and Amara). The film lacks any heart or soul to it. Yes, there is lots of action, lots of Jaegers fighting Kaiju, but it almost feels rote. While the fight scenes in the original film are masked in night and rain, the fight scenes in Uprising take place mostly in the bright day light. I figured that would make for something exciting, but the action mostly falls flat. Maybe, it's because there aren't any memorable touches in the fight scenes like the original such as the Newton's Cradle or the funny items falling out of cargo containers used as weapons.
Even with this said, I did enjoy the film for what it is, a film that aims high, but falls quite short of its original. The film is carried by John Boyega whose charisma makes the film very watchable. The casting of newcomer Cailee Spaeney was also great, she has a future ahead of her. I didn't much care for Scott Eastwood who doesn't emote anything other than "stern" or "annoyed".
The story for the film was pretty thin, except for the twist which sets off the big fight in the third act. I actually thought the twist of flipping Newt to be the bad guy was brilliant since Newt is the last guy I would think could be a bad guy.
I do wonder what happened to some of the other characters that survived the original film. What happened to Raleigh Becket? How come he's not with Mako Mori who shows up in this film? How come Herc Hansen is not leading the Shatterdome? And where in the hell is Hannibal Chau? The script doesn't bother to fill us in on these interesting characters from the first film.
The score was taken over by Lorne Balfe and was fairly forgettable until he uses Ramin Djawadi's original Pacific Rim theme in the third act.
I read the book as this release came nearer, and I thought that while good, it was clearly a ‘first big passion project that grew in scope and theme in the telling’. And that resulted in a charming work, but also one that could be refined and sharpened if given a second go around and seen by experienced eyes. Well, this movie did that and then some. It’s an affecting allegorical fairy tale for our time, one I honestly sorely needed after all that happened today.
If there’s one word to sum it up, it’s unapologetic. There’s a very big reason Disney didn’t take this on, yes, but there’s a whole lot smaller ones too. This is daring in a way their work hasn’t been allowed to be in years, if not a decade or two. A gay romance is one of its centerpieces, but it also tackles the fear of the other hurting so many today, the classism holding so many down, how it’s rooted institutionally, how you can’t just play nice and appease them. Balister did everything right, he played by the rules, he excelled, he gives them chance after chance, but that’s never going to be enough. The system and those behind it will toss you aside because you don’t belong.
Riz Ahmed plays him perfectly, making what could’ve been a stick in the mud such fun to listen to, and displaying his journey from lost and tossed aside golden boy to a man who’s found strength in the truth and most of all, his friend. In conjunction with the most effective set of puppy dog eyes I’ve ever seen, you can’t help but feel and root for him. Beck Bennett is always a gem in any ensemble and gets some big laughs. Eugene Lee Yang was a sleeper hit- I didn’t expect a Try Guy to remind me so heavily of Crispin Freeman, and that is high praise. It’s not that he sounds like a discount version of him, but that he has a similar lived in earnestness and genuine personality amidst a theatrical and dramatic performance, somehow grounded and knightly all at once. And Conroy is a risible antagonist, one who has convinced herself her paranoia and prejudices are noble and for the greater good and all the worse for it. She does not consider herself a monster by any means, but an aggrieved martyr doing what must be done, and Conroy makes her real while not sympathetic to anyone but herself.
But the most striking performance of all, of course, is Chloe Grace Mortez as Nimona. She put her heart into this role and you can feel it. She straddles the line of what could’ve been either ‘softened and smoothed so as to lose all edges’ and ‘so obnoxious and bloodthirsty so as to lose empathy’, and makes it look easy, instead conveying a character who’s found her way to survive in a world that turned its back on her first. An inner pain at the heart of her rage, one that’s always hoping that she’ll be proven wrong. Or rather, proven right with what she first saw all those years ago- that people can accept and love something different. But the film also never frames her as in the wrong for pointing that anger where it belongs- at the system that props up what was done to her. Many films would’ve agreed the director was the only problem, but this one asserts that the institute and the wall that enables and created her must also be torn down. Mortez goes hand in hand with immaculate writing and gorgeous animation to craft a character who’s hilarious, heartfelt, and devastating. Nimona in motion is such a striking vibrancy against everything else, bringing a life and beauty and color they don’t see until the end. And it makes it such a gut punch when Nimona has lost hope and that pink is replaced with black and white.
There’s a lot of ways Nimona resonates with today. The Director exclaiming Balister has a weapon is a subtle, brief one that only lasts a minute but hits like a punch to the gut. There’s Nimona defending herself being taken as self evident proof she is a monster. There’s her suicide attempt, where the rampage in the book is a path of vengeance here it’s just a last resort after once again losing everything and being rejected on a fundamental level. All that is one reason Disney wouldn’t take this on. But another is it’s sense of humor, or in acknowledging that yes kids know what blood is and many like it and they can handle it. The movie’s not a bloodbath by any means, but blood is just. There! Gay people are there! This movie, despite Disney, despite the conservative backlash against queer children’s media, is here. Saying you are seen. You are not alone. It’s something I think a lot of people, of any age, needed to hear today, and will need to hear in the future. I know I’m one of them.
"If you love Barbie. If you hate Barbie. This movie is for you."
At least that's what the trailers say. But as someone who doesn't belong to either group, I can confirm that you'll have fun even without a love-hate attitude towards the doll. As a fan of Greta Gerwig, this didn't surprise me either. Since it was announced that she was chosen as director for the Barbie film, one could foresee that the film would turn out to be more profound than it could have been.
However, "Barbie" is not entirely free of criticism. I definitely felt the advertising message in numerous places. It is, to some extent, surprising how many jokes the company Mattel has allowed on their account. But that is, of course, exactly the strategy. In the end, it's all about selling Barbie dolls. But the merchandise approach is omnipresent in most other big-budget Hollywood productions, so I can overlook it for the most part here as well.
What really convinced me about the film were two primary factors: the great production design and the clever screenplay. "Barbie" looks really fantastic with its excess of pink and plastic feel. The Barbie world and the real world are a perfect contrast. The screenplay, which Gerwig co-wrote with her partner Noah Baumbach, in turn offers room for numerous different approaches. Thus, at some points the film is a biting satire, while at other moments it is heartfelt, hilarious, feminist, existentialist, or totally absurd. Gerwig and Baumbach teach the audience several life lessons at once, most of which have depth. The film is thus, fortunately, so much more than just a commercial.
But "Barbie" is also a complete success because of its strong cast. That Margot Robbie is a good choice for the lead should come as no surprise to anyone. I also appreciate the fact that she finally doesn't play the "slightly crazy" character for a change. Ironically, though, the real star of the film is probably Ryan Gosling as Ken, who has already demonstrated fantastic timing in comedy several times in the past. Here, he's so good that he might even have a shot in the Oscar race.
All in all, my verdict is positive across the board. "Barbie" is a film that is one of the better examples of mainstream summer cinema. Above all, its high level of creativity sets it apart from the competition. I can only recommend everyone give this film a chance. It really doesn't matter at all whether you hate Barbie, love her, or don't care about her.
Barbie was fun and legit had feminism and the patriarchy at it's core but sometimes was a bit heavy-handed for even me, but that part wasn't targeted for me and that's ok, and I think a huge amount of people will love it. Although honestly wasn't as kid friendly as I was expecting akin to The Lego Movie, with a lot more real world issues presented.
I think the highlights are the sets and visuals by Rodrigo Prieto, Greta Gerwig as director and Margot Robbie in the lead role, reminding everyone why she's so amazing after a couple of recent box office duds.
The fact that I used to have a housemate that used to sing an acoustic version of “Push” by Matchbox Twenty to girls had me laughing a lot. I'll tell you The Godfather is a great movie, but you can go and watch it yourself :P
I think there will be a very vocal minority that will hate this movie, and a large amount of people that will vocally defend it. While I did think there was 1-2 occasions the messaging was a bit too strong I can also happily accept that for some people it will be amazing to hear it put so bluntly. I also really think that a lot of the vocal people that hate this movie, might also be represented in this movie and might lack the self-awareness of that fact.
A strong movie and while I think Oppenheimer was the better "Film" of the Barbenheimer combo, I think Barbie will be more memorable to it's target audience.
A slew of legal troubles behind the scenes led to a six year gap between Bond films. As a result, Timothy Dalton resigned and Pierce Brosnan was brought in to take the helm (the man originally intended to step in for Roger Moore were it not for other contractual obligations).
The fall of the Berlin wall has changed the face of world politics since the last film. Bond, although never directly involved with America’s struggle against Russia, is very much a product of the Cold War. That’s all over now, leading some to wonder if the franchise should end altogether.
This leaves the producers with an uphill struggle, trying make Bond relevant and interesting in a age where the very core of the character has been dissolved.
Instead of dodging the issue, GoldenEye tackles it head on.
In 1986 007 is sent on a mission with 006 (Sean Bean) to destroy a Russian military facility. 006 is captured and Bond leaves him for dead in his escape. Years later we rejoin Bond on a mission to follow a member of a crime syndicate. He uncovers a plot to steal an EMP weapon from the Russians, fronted by his ex-colleague.
One would expect GoldenEye to try something radically different in its attempts to appeal to a 1995 audience, and yet the exact opposite happens. This is almost a ‘back to basics’ for Bond, not quite harking back to Dr. No but almost. The women, the action & the gadgets are all there, but somehow it all feels revitalised.
Instead of a completely new idea, the producers opted for a subtle shift in tone. This is a deft move; it keeps the fans happy while helping to bring the franchise into the 21st century.
At the forefront of this change is Judi Dench as M. She gets a small but key role in establishing some of the much needed self-awareness GoldenEye exhibits. She’s cold towards Bond and shows disdain towards him, famously saying “…I think you’re a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War…”. This is something that needed to be said before we could move on; Bond has been getting away with this crap for sixteen films now…
There are lots of new elements brought in behind the scenes too, notably the new director Martin Campbell. He is confident and makes the big action scenes stick. He has a way of bringing us into the moment through close attention to detail. The close-ups of the actors match the wide-shots exactly, despite being shot in two completely different studios. We never feel like we are about to sit back and watch a stunt man do his thing for ten minutes.
Brosnan is also a welcome addition. He is intense but not without a sense of humour, and seems more involved in a lot of the stunt work. He also manages to convey a situational awareness sometimes lacking in the others; it looks like he’s actually thinking about the plot and what he’s supposed to be doing, rather than just ‘do I look cool?’.
He’s helped out by some talented writing. Every character in GoldenEye serves some purpose and no-one is forgettable. Alan Cummings as Boris the computer hacker, Robbie Coltrane as the Russian gangster, Famke Janssen as the crazy thigh-squeezing killer Xenia Onatopp… the list goes on. If you’ve seen the film, you know who I am talking about. This probably hasn’t been the case since Goldfinger (where you know the characters even if you haven’t seen the film…).
Ironically enough the dullest character is the one most central to the plot - Sean Bean’s Alec Trevelyan.
GoldenEye is a promising start to a new era. It somehow breaks new ground on an idea that began in a very different time, whilst being every bit as entertaining and exciting as the best of them.
http://benoliver999.com/film/2015/08/15/goldeneye/
Even as someone who rates this so highly, it is easy to see why so many may be put off. From the opening scene, this is a film utterly committed to its theatrical style and format, making no concessions to those who may be put off by the excess and editing style that dominates the opening scenes and many that follow. And yet this is not a film out of control - far from it, the format perfectly suits the environment within which this musical takes place and each of these moments serves the story and stage format that Luhrmann is trying to adhere to. Nor is it these scenes that remain with you at the end - fortunately for a film whose essential message is about the power of love, it is in the central love story that the film’s greatest strength lies. Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman have yet to better their performances here and one would have to be a hardened cynic not to be swayed by their romance. Each of their musical moments together are beautifully played and so committed are they to playing their romance straight, that there is a genuine feel to their chemistry. It is also in these scenes where Luhrmann alters the frenetic style, allowing for these quieter moments to shine. The choreography is superb and the film is edited to within an inch of its life, the highlight of which is a stunning rendition of Sting’s "Roxanne" to a tango (though it is equally likely that the film’s version of Madonna’s "Like A Virgin" will linger in the memory too, but for different reasons). Luhrmann's finest film to date.
If you have watched Him and Her versions forget about this one. Nothing new and scenes are badly put together. Too many sudden cuts, and changes of scenes and moods, no explanations. If you wonder which scenes are used that are in both movies, here it goes, class- from Him, car- Him, apartment- Her, ending- Him.
Even if you haven't watched first two, skip Them, you really don't need it, and instead watch Him and then Her. I think it would feel wrong to watch first Her and then Him.
And yes, as others here have said, this version is boring, but I have enjoyed Him + Her.
A long time ago I read Rosemary Sutcliff’s The Eagle of the Ninth, the book this film is based on. It was a very long time ago, I’m pretty sure I checked it out from the children’s library way back in the day. But, here’s the thing, I remember it. And I actually remember details from it. Now my memory is bad, really bad for details like that. But I sometimes remember things that I liked. I certainly forget the unliked rubbish almost as soon as I’ve finished it, books and films. So I can deduce that the book was good.
I also remember really enjoying it.
I do remember hearing about this film when it came out in 2011, but the buzz was not good and I never got around to looking for it. But I spotted it on Netflix and thought it sounded like a decent enough Sunday evening film.
And you know what? It was.
Tatum plays the role of a Roman centurion whose father disappeared along with a legion and an Eagle years ago. He has risen in the ranks and requested a place in Britain so that he could regain his family’s honour. Bell plays the role of his slave, Esca, who becomes his guide north of Hadrian’s Wall.
I think that there are some viewer who may object to Marcus Aquila’s American accent, but he was Roman, he didn’t speak with an English accent either. So that didn’t bother me at all. I actually really enjoyed this film, it is low key in many ways, but has more than enough action and plot to keep you interested.
I do remember the book as being more about friendship and trust and betrayal, than about swashbuckling. The film does have aspects of that, but of course the book had that in more depth.
I also loved the look of the film, from the wilds north of the wall to the fantastic look of the Seal People, it all looks great.
All in all, a pretty good Sunday afternoon film.
