We join The Menu on a private pier, alongside a dozen snooty, well-dressed guests awaiting transport to an exclusive island retreat. There resides a world-renowned chef, plus an eerily devoted kitchen staff, who have prepared a culinary experience like no other. As we’re led through a tour of the grounds, curtly seated and served our first expensive wine pairing, a sense of unease settles over the room. There’s tension in the air, a mutual holding of the breath that disturbs the once-cordial atmosphere between dining partners and envelopes the celebrity chef like a cloak as he stands before the room to introduce the first course.
The film’s basic premise is that everyone has something to hide, no matter how they choose to disguise it, but it’s crafty about illustrating that point. Chef Slowik (Ralph Fiennes) has a personal bone to pick with all in attendance, save for one last-minute substitution (Anya Taylor-Joy), and uses the contents of the meal to voice those complaints. Dished in gratuitous detail and served with an itemized list of ingredients, it’s half high-end food porn and half salacious tell-off, with a spicy side tray of dark humor. Like its thematic contemporary, Glass Onion, The Menu works a fine balance between witty laughs and creepy suspense. Helplessly, we guess (often wrong but sometimes right) about the next surprise. We laugh at the absurdity of the menu, the vapidity of the social elite and the icy boldness of the staff. And, in the end, we’re left a little unnerved. Well done, all around.
I had an absolute blast with this one. I don't think it quite reaches the heights of Searching, but it absolutely justifies its existence and then some. It almost feels odd to say about movie like this, but there's a real formal elegance to the craft here. Searching and now Missing are really the height of the "digital interface" genre. These movies are engaging in a way that actually feels incredibly novel and fun. There's a "Where's Waldo?" element at play that almost makes you feel like you can "solve" the movie before it guides you to the end. Of course, that's an inherent element of any thriller, but here it feels so much more tangible. And the best part is that while it might be labelled a gimmick, it's really just a brilliant use of the audio-visual medium that is film. If every frame counts and is supposed to advance story, then movies like Missing should be seen as exemplary achievements in film. That might be a tad hyperbolic, but I'm just really jazzed that a genre like this now exists.
To get to the movie, it basically delivers on everything I signed up for. My suspension of disbelief was definitely stretched a bit more than I was expecting, especially when this movie begins to veer into the horror genre, but never so much that I wanted to get off the ride. There were also certainly some little plot elements that felt contrived or convenient, but given the experience I was expecting from this movie (a fun thrill-ride) I was never totally put off.
The fact that this movie, amidst all the fun, also provides some incisive and thoughtful commentary on our current digital age - in terms of how it's commoditized, how it desensitizes us, how despite our greater connectivity our humanity hasn't necessarily increased, etc. - is a beautiful cherry on top! What really landed the plane for me with Missing were the emotional beats that the movie managed to pay off in the end. A thumb reaction to a message, and a father-son reunion both brought a giant smile to my face and reassured me that I was in the safe hands of thoughtful storytellers throughout this movie. While this wasn't quite as mind-blowing as Searching, I do think this was a very worthy successor, and overall another successful entry in this genre of movies.
Paradise for Nic Cage fans, as Nic Cage plays a slightly fictionalized version of Nic Cage, travels overseas to visit an obsessive Nic Cage fan, argues with an imaginary friend (younger, crazier Nic Cage), combats a drug kingpin (not Nic Cage) and writes a movie. Want to guess which Hollywood celebrity he casts in the leading role?
Wacky, tongue-in-cheek and overtly meta-conscious, The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent sees Cage leaning into his well-earned public image, embracing his noted private eccentricities and having some fun with his status as a world-class weirdo. He finds a capable partner in Pedro Pascal, who flaunts an impressive set of comedic chops as the aforementioned international fanboy. Together, they see sights and enjoy luxuries while discussing life, love and their favorite cinematic Cage-isms in the same breath. This is fun while it lasts, longer than I'd expect in fact, but eventually we do have to move on from the knowing winks and silly dialogue. At that transitional moment, it fades quickly, in a desperate effort to connect the most effective bits of the first two acts with a grander arching metaphor that's mismatched at best. Lame stuff, really; a limp follow-through to what had been a sharp, intelligent cluster of joyous mayhem up to that point.
While the getting's good, it's a wickedly entertaining ride, but that last half-hour feels like work.
Starts great, continues strong but finishes weak.
After the night club scene the police are no longer involved in the movie at all. The reason this is bad is because the authorities all thought that Max was the murderer apart from one cop who believed he was actually just the taxi driver. However, we saw him take multiple shots at close range that dropped him & we don't know if he lived.
We don't know what happened to Max with this poor ending, the police had ID'd him already so he is a suspect and he also cuffed a policeman at gunpoint. He had a witness who is high ranking in the legal system to back him up but he could have also been shot on sight by some angry cops after what happened at the nightclub.
I think you could also argue that the story as it is told is lacking substance, we are fed traces of why the hitman is working; he is eliminating witnesses. So what happened with that? Did justice prevail since the last witness survived?
I guess we are entitled to draw our own conclusions and finish the ending ourselves since none was provided.
7/10 Fantastic acting but I feel they should have taken another 15 minutes to properly conclude the story.
Ok wow that was good. Like really good.
Man just a lot of fun.
So plot wise this is a movie about two people both of whom are bad people. They meet happenstance and find out they're both going to the same destination wedding. Lindsay is the former fiance of the groom (he left her) and Frank is his half-brother. They both hate the groom Keith but it barely unites them as they both just hate everything.
This plotline sounds familiar because it's basically all you need to know to watch FX's absolutely excellent You're the Worst. But this is just a movie version of that pilot. So what you really look for in this movie is not so much the plot which we all know (Boy meets girl, ... , They get together), but the chemistry and how they get together. Ryder and Reeves have EXCELLENT chemistry and the writing was top notch. Which it had to be because this movie is 90% Lindsay and Frank riffing off one another. It doesn't feel improvy or forced. But the sheer endurance of the back and forth between them is impressive. They should be together based on that alone. But Keanu plays a character that in other people's hands would feel lazy and dull. I love Bruce Willis movies but ever since I learned he has a rider that says he films his parts in like 2 days and then collects his money and they film the rest of the movie. It suddenly clicks what is wrong with his performances lately. It's that he's not performing. Reeves does the oppsite here. He takes a character that is written as lifeless and stiff and he performs that stiffness. Ryder's Lindsay on paper is pathetic. Keith broke off their engnagement like a dick but she sues him and is still coming to this Destination Wedding performatively instead of saying no and sparing herself the pain. Ryder infuses her with pain and anger and spite. Yet she's develops a hesitant but honest and open affection for Frank that keeps her interesting.
This is exactly the sort of movie I would buy just to have on tap when I need something to watch that's entertaining but not stupid.
Oh how I wanted to love this movie. How could it go wrong? Three of the best actresses of their generation and a director whose work I admire, all in one film. And alas, it isn't good. The result is a drama without drama and characters that not even these great talents could breathe life into. In a way it reminded me of a bad Woody Allen movie (side note: the shots of the empty hallways towards the end was reminiscent of the same scenes in Allen's Interiors). There would be scene after scene where very little happens to advance the plot or your interest in the characters. It's almost like dutifully walking through the movie taking notes on what happened and then on to the next scene, as if we were walking past museum exhibits. At no point is any of it compelling or even very interesting.
This film is also another classic case of the rottentomatoes score not being indicative of the quality of the movie. Is it necessarily bad enough to get a negative score? No, but I would by no means take the number of positive reviews as an indication of the movie's worth.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
They did Natasha so wrong with this movie. Black Widow is my favourite from the mcu and therefore I was super excited to watch a backstory and a full solo movie of her. However, it felt so meh. The plot is generic and easily predictable, the characters had no depth whatsoever, even though there was an attempt, and the villain was not even a villain? He was dead in 10 minutes? His plan was dumb? It was all too easy, especially for someone with the skills on Natasha Romanoff. She's supposed to be a badass trained killer with a difficult childhood and trauma, yet somehow they turned her into a generic spy comedy film that my mom watches after 10pm on Saturdays. No, just no. Such a shame and a waste. And to think I cried my eyes out when the character got sacrificed (or made a great exit anyway), only to be brought back like this.
Edit: would've much better preferred to see what happened in Budapest with Clint or at least show us her training and how much she went through during her time in the Red Room, that would at least have been interesting, all that exposition was unnecessary.
This was fucking horrific. This scriptwriter should be forced to find a new career. The second that Rosamund Pike was kidnapped, I thought to myself, "He's either going to propose, or they're going to go into business together." The problem was in getting to the point, where this actually happened. These Russian mobsters must've been the most incompetent buffoons on the planet to not be able to finish off two individuals, who they'd already pretty much brought to w/in an inch of their life. This was such an incredible stretch that it made this movie absolutely ridiculous.
Aside from this, the fact that the writer tried to make these two women sympathetic characters screams that there's something really off w/ this writer. On what planet are people who take advantage of, and essentially murder, some of the most vulnerable members of society sympathetic?
On one last note, I've never been a fan of Rosamund Pike. I'd seen her in two previous films, where she was not good at all: Jack Reacher and Gone Girl. In the former, she's so melodramatic, it's difficult to watch, and it's even more difficult to take her character seriously. In the latter, although she's playing a character w/ Antisocial Personality Disorder, that doesn't necessarily mean someone devoid of affect, which is exactly how she played that role. She may as well have been a talking stump in that movie. I realize that she received industry-wide recognition for the latter role, but I prescribe this to the industries' complete and utter lack of understanding of psychological disorders and their accompanying attributes.
I wasn't going to watch this film b/c of my distaste for Ms. Pike's acting ability, but the movie, on its own, won such rave reviews, I figured that I'd give it a chance. However, something about her just wasn't right. She had this odd grin in a lot of scenes, where it either didn't fit, or it seemed like it would've been inappropriate, if it had been a real-life situation. I just find her acting to be really off-putting. Luckily, both Peter Dinklage and Dianne Wiest are always top-notch performers.
When I sat down to watch Always Be My Maybe I thought this will be good, a romantic comedy written by well-regarded female comedy star, both leads are Asians so there is a new slant on an old formula.
I was wrong, aside from the lack of real chemistry between Wong and Randall what I saw is a romantic comedy that I have seen so many times before.
There are clearly big cultural references for American Asians in the film which whilst I have no handle on I’m not unaware enough to spot. The film could have been sharp and inciteful but instead was all too familiar, undercooked and sentimentally soft, like so many romantic comedies out there.
I wanted so desperately to really enjoy this film and I did laugh at moments during the runtime, so my virtual signalling and SJW credentials are prevalent but in the end I felt flat and disappointed for the run time. The whole film had a feeling of boilerplate. Proper vanilla-flavoured boilerplate.
There’s a particular scene that brought up some quick social media memes and got a lot of attention as soon as the film gained an audience when dear old Keanu Reeves popped up but in all honesty, it was a weird section of the film shoe-horned in and mostly was not that funny. The early restaurant part did get me chuckling but also I felt a bit uncomfortable, you cannot help feeling that a lot of participants in the movie probably go to establishments that serve that type of cuisine.
Always Be My Maybe felt like an extension of Fresh off the Boat and when it was pitched to Netflix it was an easy harmless option. Safe, tepid, nothing new to add to the genre and ultimately boring. But it did add another great film to the film-dud pantheon.
He's my unsolicited advice Netflix, use great comedic talent properly, be a bit daring, it’s not like you are losing money is it?
This was my favourite film of the season, primarily because of the artistry of Greta Gerwig and the skill of the performers. Saoirse Ronan and Emma Watson were brilliant, as I expected them to be, but, Florence Pugh and Eliza Scanlen were new discoveries for me (and I have already begun to enthusiastically follow their filmography). Laura Dern brought a gravitas to the nurturing, generous Marmee that deepened the character. When I saw that Meryl Streep was bringing her legacy to a relatively small role, I knew there were great expectations of this production (I later found out that both she and Saoirse, announced to Greta Gerwig, pre-production, that they WERE going to play those roles). Greta Gerwig is a profoundly intelligent writer and filmmaker, and she attracts equally gifted people with whom to collaborate. This production is rich with insights into the characters that come Louisa May Alcott's own life and borrows from some of her other works. Those who follow me know that I chat with other movie goers as I leave a movie, and, of the 6 people I spoke to, 4 gave the film a straight up 10. Two women (who watched the film together) were confused because they missed the cues as to shifts in the time line, so here's the scoop - the movie begins in the middle of the book, with Jo in New York scrambling to be published. Only once, is a flashback labelled as such, but, the movie continually flips back and forth between the Jo's present and her past. As her present sparks themes from her childhood, we are transported back to those memories. Greta Gerwig is very deliberate in how she places her cuts, long before shooting begins, so don't miss her deliberate artistry. I've already gushed on too long, so I'll end by rating this film a 10 (perfect) out of 10. [Classic Americana Drama]
There is only one redeeming factor about this movie, the fact that Trakt give rating of 1 heart the name 'Weak Sauce :(' as that describes this movie perfectly.
People may say that this is a more 'arty' film, let's be frank, it's not well enough executed to be one, I've seen better arty films elsewhere.
Not only that, but I just can't get over the plot holes, which includes some typical Hollywood style puffery, for instance, the girls hold up a cafe (I think) at gunpoint, steal money from the till without wearing gloves (so you'd think there are fingerprints at least), the girls later get arrested during Spring Break (so I'd imagine fingerprinted), so I'm either over-estimating police intelligence or information sharing, or that was a pretty big plot hole.
In addition, when they are outside the diner/superette(?) and they re-enact the hold up, how that scene would go completely unnoticed, boggles my mind, it just doesn't make sense to me.
Apart from what I feel like plot holes, the proportion of runtime spent on mindless dribble/fast cuts/etc (which is really the director trying to be artsy) bored me out of my mind like you'd never believe.
In summary, I want my hour and a half back!
Ever see a movie and you suddenly realize your IQ is dropping? That's this movie. I seriously cannot believe this movie got made, or that anyone in charge of the budget signed off on it. It's horribly dull, just scene after scene of people dancing and partying. These four "ladies" go on "spraang braaaake" and bad stuff happens. I kept waiting for the point, but really, the movie has nothing to say other than "look at these ladies in their bikinis." I guess the "moral" is that you shouldn't do bad things or bad things might happen to you? Maybe?
My least favorite part was the constant repetition of lines. I feel like the "writers" couldn't come up with good dialogue, so when they found something they liked, they repeated it. At one point, the girls get arrested, and they keep saying "it wasn't supposed to be like this" over and over. I'm not kidding, I think they said it six or seven times. The film is visually stunning, if I'm being positive. They spent a LOT of money on neon lights and fake guns...and swimsuits. SO MANY swimsuits, and so many closeups of women in swimsuits. I kinda feel like the director graduated from "Girls Gone Wild" to artsy films, but this need more plot, character arcs, and less of James Franco's teeth. If you want to hear people say "spraang braaaake forevvvvvahhh" many MANY times, go for it.
SPOILERS AHEAD…. I don’t even know if I can put into words how much I fucking love this film!!! American History X is such an underrated masterpiece—literally, from start to end. This is not an easy film to watch, but damn is it worthy of every second.
A 1998 film directed by Tony Kaye presents to us the story about a neo-Nazi skinhead named Derek Vinyard—marked with a life of cruelty, violence, racism—who is sent to prison after brutally murdering two black men who attempt larceny. Once released, he desires a change and understands his mistakes. Derek sets off to change and fix the things he did wrong, specifically that his younger brother Danny doesn’t follow in his footsteps.
American History X obtains beautiful cinematography. There is an extremely distinct and intelligent representation of hatred in the movie’s photography. The past is shot in black and white to portray how Derek viewed the world as plain as black v.s. white; and the present is shot in colour to represent Derek’s change and comprehension of what social hatred has done to better his life, which is simply nothing but pain.
Sadly, 20 years later, American History X is still relevant to this day. Recently, many problematic hate groups have been exposed and often include neo-Nazis. Never had I thought I would live in a world filled with this atrocity but disappointingly, they have always been there. Deep inside, I have this raging gut to show this film to all people that commit hate crimes or simply hate. Hell, how could that ever happen, right?
Why is it that I love American History X so much? It is because the message that this film sends out is astonishing. The script is in every single way a lesson, and it all concludes perfectly at the end. This movie in no way sets out to present white people being victimized by different races and ethnicities. It simply speaks to the world about not only racism, but how hatred can affect individuals and tear loved ones apart. Technically, this entire movie should be the definition of hate. That “Hate is baggage. Life’s too short to be pissed off all the time. It’s just not worth it.”
The movie accomplishes to teach us how individuals are never born hating. People learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, then they can be taught to love. There are numerous amounts of scenarios where this is shown through the film’s very memorable moments. From the curb stomp scene, which presents HATE, sending Derek to prison (presenting: hate does not mean better), where he soon experiences BETRAYAL from a group of neo-Nazis when they rape him, to unexpectedly befriending a black man, displaying LOVE.
Edward Norton, Edward Furlong, Beverly D’Angelo, and Jennifer Lien did amazing jobs portraying their characters—each and every single one of them with so much pain. The most difficult scene to watch was the brutal dinner table scene where Norton gives a fucking powerful performance. He really demonstrated how deep the character’s hatred can go once he sends endless insults to the Jewish man whom during that scene was in a relationship with his mother. Not to mention the part where he begins to suffocate his own sister!!
The ending of the film was the most unexpected and completely heartbreaking. Although this is a film that revolves around white supremacy, I cannot be the only one who was hoping for a happy ending. Watching a family go through such horrendous events and then watching this former neo-Nazi noticing his mistakes and profoundly attempting to fix them, only to see them end on the murder of his young brother is truly fucking tragic.
In a way, during that last scene American History X presents the cycle of social hatred. One loses, and the other wins, continuing to pass on the hate. That kid was probably put up to a test, and as soon as Danny’s blood splatters over his face, the kid’s eyes open wide, and we know he regrets it.
I have read the original script of American History X and I seriously wish this film could’ve been longer. I really believe it still would’ve been successful if they included a few scenes from the original screenplay. AMAZING MOVIE!
Paul Feig tries his hand directing a movie sans Melissa McCarthy, that honestly, on first viewing, had me hitting fast forward on the remote. Fortunately, where I stopped was the point that the movie got truly interesting, and, after watching the third act, I was intrigued enough to go back and take a second look. I'm very glad I did. It's not the typical Paul Feig, movie, neither raucous comedy, nor comedy thriller, but kind of a dark, comedish, Urban Neo-Noir, dramedy but not exactly. The female leads drive the story, but, you really don't know who to root for, as BOTH are a bit damaged and twisted, and, you have to get to the end to find out which one is MORE screwed up. A third of the way in Anna Kendrick's character makes some choices that (although they had set it up in a previous scene) were sooo aggravating and clichéd that I ALMOST called it a wrap, then, they telegraphed the "plot twist" so ham handedly that one can easily guess the rest of the movie.
THANKFULLY, Feig's deft direction, and the casts thespianship, combined with several ..but wait, but wait....., but wait, curveballs (is it a plot twist if you see it coming?) at the end made this worth the watch.
If you rent the DVD, in the extras there is a cute "flash mob" scene that was supposed to be the happy ending, to run during the title credits, but, it didn't track well to test audiences, so they cut it. Its a fun Bollywood tribute, but, IMO they were right to cut it, as it would have seemed trite and forced. Still, they tacked on some happily ever after title cards in the credits, because that's just how Paul rolls.
I am disappointed with this movie. I had such high expectations. There were many gaps in portraying the story. I am very familiar with the British history so I was able to fill in the gaps. But I was with my teenage daughter and she got lost in the story. First of all, there was no explanation as to why the religion mattered. Second, many stories were rushed, no detail provided while some other stories/parts dragged. And as I watched the scene when Elizabeth and Mary met for the first time I realized that this whole movie is about women empowerment. The way the story was told, the focus was on the strength and power of the women (mostly Mary). I don't like how Elizabeth was portrayed as a weak and insecure woman. Actually, the truth was quite the opposite - she was strong and smart woman. She knew what she wanted. She never married because she knew that she would lose power the moment she tied the knot. This is what ultimately brought Mary's demise.
If the focus of the movie was telling the story rather than making a point, the result would have been much better movie. Right now the movie lacks a seamless story telling. What a waste of good actors. And btw, I think they overdid it with Elizabeth's make up.
