Barbenheimer: Part 1 of 2
This is the kind of film I really don’t want to criticize, because we don’t get nearly enough other stuff like it. However, mr. Nolan has been in need of an intervention for a while now, and unfortunately all of the issues that have been plaguing his films since The Dark Knight Rises show up to some degree here. Visually it might just be his best film, and there’s some tremendous acting in here, particularly by Murphy and RDJ. However, it makes the common biopic mistake of treating its subject matter like a Wikipedia entry, thereby not focussing enough on character and perspective. As a whole, the film feels more like a long extended montage, I don’t think there are many scenes that go on for longer than 60 seconds. There’s a strong ‘and then this happened, and then this happened’ feel to it, which definitely keeps up the pace, but it refuses to stop and let an emotion or idea simmer for a while. There are moments where you get a look into Oppenheimer’s mind, but because the film wants to cover too much ground, it’s (like everything else) reduced to quick snippets. It’s the kind of approach that’d work for a 6 hour long miniseries where you can spend more time with the characters, not for a 3 hour film. I can already tell that I won’t retain much from this, in fact a lot of it is starting to blur together in my mind. There are also issues with some of the dialogue and exposition, such as moments where characters who are experts in their field talk in a way that feels dumbed down for the audience, or just straight up inauthentic. Einstein is given a couple of cheesy lines, college professors and students interact in a way that would never happen, Oppenheimer gives a lecture in what’s (according to the movie) supposed to be Dutch when it’s really German; you have to be way more careful with that when you’re making a serious drama. Finally, there are once again major issues with the sound mixing. I actually really loved the score, but occasionally it’s blaring at such a volume where it drowns out important dialogue in the mix. I’m lucky enough to have subtitles, but Nolan desperately needs to get his ears checked, or maybe he should’ve asked some advice from Benny Safdie since he’s pretty great with experimental sound mixing. My overall feelings are almost identical to the ones I had regarding Tenet; Nolan needs to rethink his approach to writing, editing and mixing. This film as a whole doesn’t work, but there are still more than a few admirable qualities to it.
Edit: I rewatched this at home to see whether my feeling would change. I still stand by what I wrote in July, though the sound mix seems to have been improved for the home media release. It sounds more balanced and I didn’t miss one line of dialogue this time around. I’m slightly raising my score because of that, but besides that I still think it’s unfocused, overedited, awkwardly staged and scripted etc.
5.5/10
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.
In Captain Marvel, I didn’t like the main character, but I thought the movie around her was quite solid.
Black Widow is the exact opposite: I quite liked the two leads, but the movie surrounding them doesn’t really work.
Pros:
- Scarlett Johansson and Florence Pugh are easily the most entertaining part of the film.
- I liked the first act. It feels like Cate Shortland is trying to do an impression of a Jason Bourne movie. It’s fairly humourless, the cinematography is bleak, and the score is intense. It has a tone that no other MCU film has.
- The action (minus the final battle) is fairly well done. As per usual, less editing would’ve made it better, but at least it feels weighty.
Cons:
- The story itself isn’t that interesting. The themes and main mcguffin are oddly similar to Captain Marvel, though it’s not executed as well. The villains also fail to make an impression.
- This movie really loses its identity as it goes along, to the point where it turns more into a generic Marvel movie as it goes on, and eventually a generic action blockbuster by the third act. Everything gets way too big and bloated for its own good.
- Not a fan of the Russian accents, they sound very tacky. Just let everyone speak with a normal American accent, I can look past the fact they’re Russians. Besides, they even had a story based reason to ditch the Russian accents entirely.
- I found David Harbour quite cringeworthy in this.
- The main characters are protected by strong plot armour. Most characters should’ve been killed 3-4 times based on the things that happen during the action scenes. This isn’t even a ‘suspend your disbelief, it’s an action movie’ situation, it gets really ridiculous, to the point where it’s almost Fast and Furious level.
- The pacing is a bit inconsistent, you really feel it slowing down during the second act.
Finally, I want to address that I already find the use of Nirvana songs in movies like these quite distasteful, but the cover that's used during the credits literally sucked all the life out of the song.
4.5/10
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
I believe that RLM in their review of the last one compared these movies to Taco Bell.
Everything has the same 5 ingredients, just placed in a different order.
It’s hard to argue with that after seeing this film.
It’s plagued by the exact same problem as the Terminator franchise; the creatives behind it are clueless on how to expand the franchise beyond the lore of the classics.
As a result, you get these rinse and repeat movies that are high on the nostalgia bait and devoid of anything interesting.
This somehow manages to be the worst one of the trilogy, I’d say it’s about on par with something like Jurassic Park III.
It’s somehow the dumbest Jurassic film (no, I haven’t forgotten about the military subplots in the previous 2, but this one literally introduces a new dinosaur nicknamed the ‘Giga’ and an evil company called ‘Biosyn’) with some of the cringiest dialogue and acting I’ve seen in a long time, none of which is embraced by the filmmakers. I think it’d play much better if this material was treated like a spoof, or at the very least more tongue in cheek (could’ve used more hallucinations of a dinosaur screaming “ALAN!”). It’s trying so hard to be sincere and Spielbergian, but it doesn’t work.
Moreover, the new characters are still either boring clichés or annoying, it looks too glossy, it’s way too long given how little’s going on, action’s alright but nothing that’s truly impressive or visceral; it’s just a bland mush of forgettable nothingness, and Jeff Goldblum’s charisma can’t save any of it.
3/10
Between this and Cherry, it’s becoming more and more clear that the MCU’s best director is called Kevin Feige.
Netflix clearly spent a lot of money on this, you can feel the price of your subscription going up with every new set piece that’s introduced, but the end results are still unforgivingly bland and generic nonetheless.
It’s their attempt to compete with Bond, Bourne or Mission Impossible, but if anything this feels like a poser imitation of those superior blockbuster franchises. The plot is in fact literally ripping off both Skyfall and The Bourne Identity at the same time, but forgets about any of their depth in regards to story and character.
The Russos are clearly trying to recapture that same tone and spark from their Captain America: The Winter Soldier days, but they end up making something that’s more akin to the quality of Red Notice.
In terms of directing they kinda got outdone by their own second unit director with his Netflix action flick, as I’d argue that Extraction is a marginally better film than this.
The action’s poorly done and cheaply put together, lots of annoying editing choices (heavy overuse of drone shots, quick cuts and can the Russos pick a normal font for once?), corny dialogue, distractingly bad CGI, boring visuals and music (why is everything so low contrast, foggy and muddy?); not a lot to recommend about this one.
The acting’s fine, Evans is having a blast, but I have absolutely no idea why an extremely picky actor like Ryan Gosling chose this script in the first place. It seems like a paycheck movie for someone of his caliber. Just watch The Nice Guys instead of this if you want to see Goose in an action comedy, we don’t need these 200 million dollar direct to streaming action films.
4/10
If you’d ask me what the highlights of the previous 2 Ant-Man movies are, I’d probably answer: I don’t remember much about them, but I liked those quirky scenes narrated by Michael Peña and the creative use of shrinking powers during the set pieces. For as forgettable as both movies are, at least I still remember the set piece with the train in the first movie, or the kitchen fight from the second movie. With this movie, I'm already having trouble remembering any specifics, because all of those typical Edgar Wright touches have been erased in favor of being a big CGI extravaganza. So, allow me to do a general breakdown of the three acts instead.
1st act: We get a set-up that's similar to Spiderman: No Way Home, which means it’s in a hurry to get to the main dish, making every main character look like an irresponsible dumbass in the process. Once we get to the quantum realm, we're met with a lot of cringe comedy. The design of the world is fine, it feels like a mashup of prequel era Star Wars, Avatar, The Fifth Element and Spy Kids, not like an original creation. A stronger, visionary director probably would've made a big difference here, or at least one who knows how to use the volume stages, because that might’ve avoided the Spy Kids comparisons.
2nd act: Jonathan Majors arrives to do some actual acting, and he somehow pulls it off despite the hammy, pseudo-intellectual lines given to him by the script. Michelle Pfeiffer also gets some time to shine, when she's on the screen with Majors it feels like the movie actually comes to life for a brief second. Still, the scenes with Kang feel tonally inconsistent with the rest of the movie, and I’m not sold on the idea of him being the Avengers level threat we’ve been waiting for. When it comes to the other actors, most of them are given nothing interesting to do, the supposed co-lead of this movie (according to the title) included. I don't like picking on younger actors, but it needs to be said that Emma Fuhrmann expressed more emotion during her 10 second appearance as Cassie Lang in Avengers: Endgame than Kathryn Newton did here. In terms of story, this portion of the movie is all about set-up and clunky exposition as delivered through monologues. One of the characters even gets introduced with his own 'previously on Ant-Man' recap, which I find insulting and shows what little faith this studio has in its audience. Besides, it probably would’ve been better to cut this character, because his inclusion is easily one of Marvel's worst creative decisions (the design and visual effects are laughable). Generally I'd say this act is pretty boring, and occasionally embarrassing.
3rd act: The movie decides it wants to be Aquaman instead, so we're getting an extended battle sequence of stuff fighting other stuff, with plenty of flashes, lasers and more stuff. It's big, it's loud, and I check out. Every cheesy crowdpleaser deserves its fair share of deus ex machina moments, but this movie spams the action movie trope of 'our main character is in peril only to get saved at the very last moment' to death at this point. Furthermore, the cringe comedy makes a big return, with Corey Stoll delivering a line so bad that it will become a meme (you'll know once you see the movie). More punchy stuff, more pew pew, more 'comedy', and thankfully the movie finally decides it has wasted enough of my time. We get a final montage that includes the first good joke of the movie, and the credits roll. Nothing is achieved, absolutely nothing. This is a cynically conceived advertisement that does not deserve your time.
3/10
If you plan to watch this because everyone keeps saying how this film is "different" from MCU films, stop right here.
That's a false advertisement. It's not a "black and white monster film from the '40s". Werewolf by Night is an MCU film through and through. There's nothing "different". Let me list:
And those are just from the top off my head. Sure you can find more if you're observant.
Well, sure Werewolf by Night is dressed in black and white but that's about it. It's a gimmick. It's not even trying to capture the essence of classic black and white films The Artist (2011) did it or build the atmosphere like Sin City (2005) did it. People saying this film is "different" from MCU needs to get their eyes checked and watch more films.
If you just wanted to watch an MCU, sure you get what you asked. But if you expected more, then whatever you heard about this film is a big fat hoax.
This is in many ways the exact movie that The Lego Batman Movie made fun of.
So, I can totally understand if this film reads like self-parody to some (I'll admit, the gravely film noir detective voice over was a bit much, it's been parodied to death at this point), but I'd argue that it's overall a refreshing take on the character in a well thought out story that includes some excellent performances. Paul Dano, Robert Pattinson and Zoe Kravitz all nail their roles.
It's a typical Matt Reeves blockbuster in every sense. It's grounded, serious, and there's a strong emphasis on drama/tension, and less on action. The production and style of this thing are phenomenal. Excellent cinematography, which should be Oscar nominated (but probably won't), music, production value, costumes, directing, etcetera. It's grim, it's dark, it's gritty, but it doesn't feel like it's directed by a 16 year old edgelord either. I love how the colour palette of this film is restricted to black, grey, orange and red. It's perfect, taking clear influences from David Fincher films, neo noir detectives and '70s paranoia thrillers (maybe a hint of Marvel Netflix as well). I hope it reinvents the wheel for many blockbusters to come.
Its biggest problem are the pacing and the characters. I'm fine with defending longer films, but this isn't a smooth 3 hour ride. It holds its cards very close to the chest during the first half, to the point where it's hard to engage with and can get kinda boring. It's a lot of set-up, mood and atmosphere, and not much else. It doesn't really hook you with its characters or the dramatic intrigue of the story, as I didn't find this slow moving mystery compelling enough by itself (partially because it doesn't really engage the audience; you can't solve it by yourself). There's not even that much action to compensate, besides a few quick beats here and there.
It also relies too much on the cultural iconography of Batman and Catwoman that already exists in our current zeitgeist, and while I might know those characters as cultural icons, I don't know this Batman, or this Catwoman. It eventually gets there though, as The Riddler and Catwoman get a lot more interesting in their own right as the film goes along, but it takes a long time. I love that this Riddler is essentially re-imagined to be a radicalized 4 Chan incel , which feels very relevant for today. Still, we know very little about Batman by the end of it (besides his brooding indie rockstar behavior), which is mostly due to the general lack of Bruce Wayne in the film. Batman cannot be interesting without a good Bruce Wayne accompanying him. That's nothing against Robert Pattinson, he's very good in it, but the writing for his character is very one note. As a film, it would've benefitted a lot from a deeper dive into his psyche, because the emotional arc of his character doesn't feel earned by the end.
Still, these issues could easily be fixed in a sequel, it's a good enough foundation for a series of great Batman films.
7/10
I'm completely fine with not painting the broader context of the civil war in this film. If that doesn't interest Garland as a filmmaker, there's no need to. The notion of California and Texas teaming up negates any possibility of this being a direct metaphor almost by design. His interest here clearly lies in making a movie about journalism and neutrality as symbolized through the character played by Kirsten Dunst. Together with fellow photojournalists Joel, Jessie and Sammy we find ourselves on a road trip where our protagonists are trying to get to the white house and interview the president (Nick Offerman). Unfortunately, none of these characters are developed in an interesting way, so that makes the first half a bit of a slog. There's still interesting bits of tension, but some of the writing is surprisingly stupid coming from Alex Garland. Take the scene with Jesse Plemons, which is probably the best scene. The entire set-up to that scene introduces these two disposable new characters in a way that feels like it comes from a much dumber film, on top of that it makes the Plemons scene feel contrived and forced. That scene has some fantastic acting and tension, but it ultimately resolves in a way that's unintentionally funny by using a trope often found in action comedy films. I don't know if Garland's consciously watering it down to reach a broader audience, but he's certainly not at his sharpest here. You pretty much know from the beginning which characters are going to die, and they're usually killed once they expose themselves at their most human. Going back to how that comments on the theme of the film, I think that's an incredibly narrow minded, childish view of journalism. The film even indirectly acknowledges how taking pictures is a process of selection; there's bias involved there, it isn't neutral or simply something left for a reader to interpret. Combined with the general portrayal of the journalists as opportunistic assholes (look no further than the cheesy note this film ends on), this movie often fails to strike a chord that feels truthful. I could go into all the other small details that don't make a lot of sense (e.g. aren't there a ton of escape routes underneath the white house?), but instead I'll just leave it there. I enjoyed Dunst's and McKinley Henderson's performances (the other two aren't quite as strong) and the third act is an engaging set piece for as long as you don't put too much thought into it. Technically, it's fine. There's some beautiful visual moments but I wouldn't say it looks better than Devs or Annihilation. Rob Hardy does some interesting things with objects coming in and out of focus to reflect the main characters, but in terms of colour and composition I expect a little better from him. The music choices didn't work at all for me, I found the juxtaposition way too jarring. There's this De La Soul needle drop when someone's being executed and I'm still baffled what that scene's trying to communicate tonally. Still, I enjoyed the sound design and strong use of silence, especially during the more intense scenes. Overall, if this is A24's interpretation of what a blockbuster should be going forward, they probably shouldn't bother. I'm astounded by how much of this doesn't work. It's simultaneously too watered down to work as art and not fun enough to work as entertainment. For something that's tainted to be the 'most controversial movie of the year', it's too forgettable to leave a real impression.
4/10
Brüno," surprisingly this was not as well received. I mean, you can have your preferences about it. I personally enjoy the film even more than "Borat," but I would say that on a technical level, they're probably on par.
First of all, how much of a testament is it to Sasha Baron Cohen's character acting abilities that he was able to fool all of these people into thinking that his character was a real person? All within only a couple years of starring in one of the most talked about comedies of 2006. Remember, this is just hair and makeup. He's not wearing a layered mask and putting on a fatsuit; what sells it is his performance. There's so many details in his performance that separate this character from Borat: his posture, the way he walks, how his mouth is held open when he's not talking.Again, he's able to use himself as a character pretending to film something completely different than what people actually think they're being filmed in.
And just like "Borat" was able to make statements on racism, cultural differences, and stereotypes; "Brüno" is filled with statements as well. But they were statements about homosexual stereotypes' fame in the fashion industry. Like how much of a statement is it that some guy with a camera is able to trick people into doing embarrassing things just under the premise that's it's "in right now?"
Do I seriously have to explain the statements they're making about celebrity media as they judged Jamie Lynn Spear's baby before birth?
To me, this movie was just as intelligent and satirical, and even more extreme than "Borat." So it really makes me think of possible reasons as to why it wasn't as well received. And there's a few things that I can thing of, right off the top of my head.
Firstly, I think it's no surprise to say that Brüno was not as emulatable of a character as Borat. No one wanted to do impressions. No one wanted to dress up as him for Halloween. There is definitely more of a social stigma when it comes down to wanting to portray a gay character. Comically racist is okay, but something about Brüno makes people uncomfortable. Which gives me even more respect for how fearless Sasha Baron Cohen's performance was.
In contrast to the people who might not like this movie because Brüno's gay, there were also a decent amount of people who didn't like this movie because they thought it gave a negative image to the gay community. Calling this movie homophobic is the equivalent of calling "Borat" racist. Making fun of a stereotype does not equate to making fun of a class of people. By exaggerating the stereotypes, is he not making a statement on how ridiculous they are?
Anyway, this is a well-made movie. Definitely check it out.
"I don't care about apps. When does it turn sour?"
This documentary mainly follows two persons, Professor David Carroll and Brittany Kaiser. The former is a privacy and data-rights advocate and the latter is a former executive at Cambridge Analytica (CA), the company that in joint abuse of privacy stole great amounts of beyond-extremely private data from Facebook users and their friends.
The documentary started out better than I had expected: Carroll expertly and clearly shows that our personal experiences and behaviour are more valuable than oil, that they are the commodities that are being sold and, most importantly, used against us.
Who are "us"? The documentary goes into that, too, by interviewing former CA staff, Carole Cadwalladr—an investigative journalist with The Guardian who exploded the CA story—and Carroll himself, as he tries to find out exactly what data of his it is that SCL/CA have.
The entire documentary takes place in context of two big political events: the 2016 USA presidential election and the UK Brexit election.
The documentary makers do a quite good job at showing how Facebook not only helped CA, but also endorsed their use of Facebook to not only sift data from users, but also attempt to change their behaviour to make them do what they wanted. CA enabled Ted Cruz's campaign trail, and did the very same for Donald Trump.
At the same time, the documentary takes a human aspect as it introduces Brittany Kaiser. As a former executive at CA, she had access to many exclusive documents which she later used against CA; she knew Alexander Nix, the CEO of CA, well.
We learn that Trump's administration spent approximately one million USD/day on Project Alamo, the code name for Trump's database of voter information for his campaign. Much of this money went into CA and trying to convert "the persuadables," i.e. people who had not yet made up their mind on whom to vote for.
Remember, 70,000 votes made the American election in 2016.
Seeing Alexander Nix be interrogated and asked "So you are the victim in all of this?" and answer "Yes" is quite overwhelming, especially when the documentary makers display a CA sales presentation that displays not only how they swung the most recent political Trinidad/Tobago election by generating apathy in non-Indian persons, but how Nix boasts of this.
Cadwalladr points out how "British election laws are not fit for purpose" and cannot be, because of "completely unaccountable tech giants."
Facebook evades responsibility. WhatsApp—owned by Facebook—is used to generate fake news (which is proven fact). Myanmar military initiated genocide thanks to Facebook. Russia created Black Lives Matter posts and protest invitations to create divides in the USA.
"Is this how you want history to remember you? As handmaidens to totalitarianism?" Cadwalladr asks during a TED talk.
Carroll says our dignity is at stake, and pushes for data rights to be included as a basic human right.
This documentary pushes matters far, but not far enough. Sure, this book focuses on CA, but could have included more, e.g. how Amazon, Microsoft, and to a much farther extent, Google, to show how human behaviour is commoditised and sold to benefit a few capitalists.
I recommend seeing Laura Poitras's "Citizenfour" on top of this, to see how Edward Snowden's information came out.
I think this was the 4th time I've watched this, and every time I'm left wondering "Was this supposed to be horror, or satire, or just campy B-movie horror with over-the-top buckets of blood?" I've still yet to figure it out. It's gruesome enough to be considered "gorror" (gory horror) but insanely stupid enough - and satiric enough - to be almost comedic. Yes, there are some jump scares but the whole thing was just so incredibly asinine that it's impossible to see it as a real "horror" movie. I can imagine that, in 1983, it was probably "th' bomb" with teenagers who were starting to get into really gruesome stuff (with the advent of the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street movies) but watching it today, it's just impossible to take it seriously. The first time I saw the "tree scene", it was pretty freaky; now it's just stupid. The one "shout out" I can give to this is the pencil through the ankle; that scene STILL makes me cringe like only the Achilles' tendon scene from Hostel can do. Hopefully this will be my final time to watch this; it's gruesome and probably as gory as they could get back then but - I don't care what any other review states - this one, by today's standards, is just ridiculous. Kudos to Sam Raimi for what he created back then, but that was then and this...well, today this is just laughably dumb.
It cuts a lot of corners in the first 10 minutes, and I kinda wish they’d found the way to integrate most of that stuff into the first half of the broadcast, as it takes too long to get going. The possession movie it eventually morphs into is alright, albeit fairly predictable. A lot of the choices reminded me of James Wan horror vehicles, which I always have a hard time taking seriously. The movie seems to be aware of that too, because it’ll occasionally push things to a more schlocky, comical place that’ll strike a chord with Sam Raimi fans. Is it uneven because of that? Absolutely. In fact, I found a lot of this half baked. The social commentary (which feels like it’s borrowing a lot from Network) isn’t fleshed out properly, Dastmalchian’s performance should’ve been more sleazy and colourful and I just didn’t feel that much emotion by the end of it. The strength of this film lies much more in its faithful recreation of the 70s talkshow aesthetic, and I particularly like its commitment to the found footage feel, which feels lot more artful than the popular found footage stuff from over a decade ago. If only they put as much effort into making the sound as dusty and lo-fi, because the film generally sounds too clean and modern. Overall, it’s not really my thing but I can see why a lot of people like it.
4.5/10
Synopsis: In first century Rome, evil Emperor Nero rules with an iron fist. Those who follow Christ live in hiding and fear for their lives; Nero has been casting those of the Way to the lions because of their faith. Paul, world-traveling missionary, is imprisoned and nearing the end of his life. Luke, a doctor and fellow believer, visits him in prison. When military commander Mauritius' daughter is sick, he is desperate to save her...but, nobody seems to be able to help. He has heard that Luke is an amazing physician...but, he can't bear the thought of having one of those Christians set foot in his home. Will he be able to save his daughter...and learn the error of his ways?
The Good: For a Christian movie, the production values here are incredible. It really took me back to the time of Acts, which, ironically, was where I was in my Bible reading plan when I started and finished this. The actors all did amazingly well, and this flick doesn't shy away from showing the brutality that those of the Way faced back in the day. There is some blood, but much of the more intense violence is implied...which can leave quite the picture in your mind's eye. Showing Paul's past haunting him was a plus; I'm a Christian now, but, I had a rather troubled childhood as well, despite being raised in a faithful home. So, when his deeds in his younger years haunted him, that just makes me identify with him all the more. All in all, this was excellent, except...
The Bad: I had a hard time getting into this at first; the jumping around made me feel like I was watching a clips show instead of an actual movie. Plus, though Jim Caviezel did well as Luke, hearing his voice made me think I was hearing Jesus instead, as he does the voice of Christ in The Word of Promise audio Bible.
Conclusion: Other than Jesus, who is your favorite person in the Bible? I've heard answers ranging from Peter to Abraham to even Samson. (I don't understand the reason for the latter answer; he may have been really strong...but he was also a rather messed-up guy, and undone by a woman.) For me, that answer is Paul, because he is a lot like me: a checkered past, a passion for expressing ideas through words, and a head for Scripture. This film illustrates his life very well; though I've seen other cinematic interpretations of his life, this one ranks above the rest. Just make sure that you stick to it when you decide to watch this; it may be a bit hard to get through at first, but it's worth it.
Score: 4/5
It is almost an understatement to say that this movie is under-complex. Fighter (2024) follows a simple friend-or-foe scheme in which the Indian army is portrayed as noble warriors with morally impeccable goals and the enemy from Pakistan as a bunch of misanthropes and terrorists capable of any atrocity. The character of Rishabh Sawhney is only there so that in the end, in an all-decisive battle, there is also an embodiment of the enemy target that the heroic figure can strike at, but the character himself, who is supposed to be the great antagonist of the film, is not actually a real human figure, but a mere projection screen of evil, without any motivation of his own from which plot elements could arise.
The film contrasts this flat antagonist, who can hardly be described as a character, with the typical hero figure of military films, the fighter jet pilot Shamsher 'Patty' Pathania, played by Hrithik Roshan. Patty is of course not just one, but the best pilot in the entire Indian Air Force and of course has a traumatic past where he lost someone important to him in combat, an incident he still blames himself for. As expected, he also has problems with superiors and following orders. Hrithik Roshan plays the whole movie with three facial expressions, looking cool, with tears in his eyes, without once crying or getting angry.
But probably the worst thing about this movie is the nationalism and militarism that oozes from every corner. The characters in this movie are only good or bad because they have a certain nationality, and there is not a single deviation from this pattern throughout the running time. The Indian army and the Indian state are infallible in this movie, combat actions are only triggered by an attack from the other side and the movie repeatedly assures itself of moral action. If you ask me what kind of film Fighter (2024) actually is, the answer can only be: a promotional film for the Indian Air Force. The film constantly outdoes itself in its glorifying portrayal of its soldiers and the great time they have together as a group. Again and again, there is talk of heroically giving one's life for one's country and the countless hero shots are intended to elevate the characters to the status of heroes in uniform; the film even gets carried away with the completely clichéd statement by one character that she is married to her country.
As difficult as the theme and ideology of this film are, the action scenes are just as successful. The fight sequences in the air, even if they drift into the physically impossible in many places, are what make this movie. Based on an outstanding sound design, Siddharth Anand succeeds in staging aerial action that doesn't need to hide behind Hollywood's TopGun films.
Unfortunately, the movie does not consist exclusively of exciting aerial sequences, but shifts to the ground for the most part, whereby the pacing gets completely out of rhythm. The excessive use of slow motion every second considerably reduces the agility of the scenes and cannot keep up with the dynamics of the aerial battles. The long running time of the film seems disproportionate and is mainly due to the excessive use of slow-motion effects, which slow down the film overall. The staging of two of the musical interludes also seems completely out of place in a war film like Figther (2024); stylistically, they are more reminiscent of advertisements for expensive perfume brands.
In the end, the movie is too long and unfortunately dripping with nationalism and militarism, and with the clear enemy/friend positioning of the characters, the happy ending never seems to be in danger. So Fighter (2024) is not a good movie and only really worth seeing in the air.
Es ist fast eine Untertreibung zu sagen, dass dieser Film unterkomplex ist. Fighter (2024) folgt einem simplen Freund-Feind-Schema, in dem die indische Armee als edle Krieger mit moralisch einwandfreien Zielen dargestellt wird und der Feind aus Pakistan als Haufen von Menschenverächtern und Terroristen, die zu jeder Gräueltat fähig sind. Die Figur des Rishabh Sawhney ist nur dazu da, dass es am Ende in einem alles entscheidenden Kampf auch eine Verkörperung des feindlichen Ziels gibt, auf das die Heldenfigur einschlagen kann, die Figur selbst, die der große Antagonist des Films sein soll, ist aber eigentlich keine wirkliche menschliche Figur, sondern eine reine Projektionsfläche des Bösen, ohne eigene Motivation, aus der sich Handlungselemente ergeben könnten.
Diesem flachen, kaum als Figur zu bezeichnenden Antagonisten stellt der Film die typische Heldenfigur des Militärfilms gegenüber, den Kampfjetpiloten Shamsher 'Patty' Pathania von Hrithik Roshan verkörpert. Patty ist natürlich nicht nur einer, sondern der beste Pilot der gesamten indischen Luftwaffe und hat natürlich auch eine traumatische Vergangenheit, in der er einen für ihn wichtigen Menschen im Kampf verloren hat, für diesen Vorfall macht er sich natürlich immer noch Vorwürfe. Mit Vorgesetzten und dem Befolgen von Befehlen hat er wie nicht anders zu erwarten auch Probleme. Hrithik Roshan spielt den ganzen Film mit drei Gesichtsausdrücken, cool durch die Gegend blickend, mit Tränen in den Augen, ohne auch nur einmal zu weinen, oder wütend.
Aber wahrscheinlich ist das Schlimmste an diesem Film der Nationalismus und Militarismus, der aus allen Ecken quillt. Die Figuren in diesem Film sind nur deshalb gut oder böse, weil sie eine bestimmte Nationalität haben, und von diesem Muster wird während der gesamten Laufzeit kein einziges mal abgewichen. Die indische Armee und der indische Staat sind in diesem Film unfehlbar, Gefechtshandlungen werden nur durch eine Attacke der Gegenseite ausgelöst und das moralische Handeln versichert sich der Film immer wieder selbst. Fragt man mich, was für ein Film Fighter (2024) eigentlich ist, kann die Antwort nur lauten: ein Werbefilm für die indische Luftwaffe. Ständige übertrifft sich der Film selbst in der glorifizierenden Darstellung seiner Soldaten und der tollen Zeit, die sie als Gruppe miteinander verbringen. Immer wieder wird vom heldenhaften Geben des eigenen Lebens für das eigene Land gesprochen und mit den unzähligen Hero-Shots sollen die Figuren immer wieder zu Helden in Uniform überhöht werden, der Film lässt sich sogar zu der völlig klischeehaften Aussage einer Figur hinreißen, sie sei mit ihrem Land verheiratet.
So schwierig das Thema und die Ideologie dieses Films sind, so gelungen sind die Actionszenen. Die Kampfsequenzen in der Luft, auch wenn sie an vielen Stellen ins physikalisch Unmögliche abdriften, sind das, was diesen Film ausmacht. Auf der Basis eines herausragenden Sounddesigns gelingt es Siddharth Anand, Luftaction zu inszenieren, die sich nicht hinter den TopGun-Filmen aus Hollywood zu verstecken braucht.
Leider besteht der Film nicht ausschließlich aus spannenden Luftsequenzen, sondern verlagert sich größtenteils auf den Boden, wobei das Pacing völlig aus dem Rhythmus gerät. Der übermäßige Einsatz von Zeitlupen im Sekundentakt mindert die Agilität der Szenen erheblich und kann mit der Dynamik der Luftkämpfe nicht mithalten. Die lange Laufzeit des Films wirkt überproportional und ist vor allem auf den übermäßigen Einsatz von Slow-Motion Effekt zurückzuführen, die den Film insgesamt entschleunigen. Auch die Inszenierung von zwei der Musicaleinlagen wirkt in einem Kriegsfilm wie Figther (2024) völlig deplatziert, stilistisch erinnern sie eher an Werbung für teure Parfümmarken.
Am Ende ist der Film zu lang und trieft leider vor Nationalismus und Militarismus, bei der so klaren Feind/Freund-Positionierung der Figuren scheint das Happy End natürlich auch nie in Gefahr. So ist Fighter (2024) kein guter Film und nur in der Luft wirklich sehenswert.
