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
The cynical side of me wants to call this Everything, everywhere all at once for consoomers.
The optimistic side of me sees Kevin Feige finally pushing the boundaries of his own franchise.
I guess it’s a little bit of both in the end.
Undoubtedly, the best thing the movie has going for it is the Sam Raiminess of it all. His fingerprints are all over it; you’re getting the weird camera angles, camp, his sense of horror, etc. It definitely has more style than some other Marvel movies, though there's also still some of the usual blandness. I'll give it to Marvel for putting in a scene where a talking corpse gives a heartfelt, sentimental speech. There's more of a psychedelic feel to it than the first film, but every time it tends to get really interesting it feels like Raimi's being reigned it to adhere to Marvel's demands. Elizabeth Olsen and Benedict Cumberbatch are giving some of their best performances as these characters to date, and the music’s really well done. But ultimately the film’s Achilles heel is its own script, which is complete junk. The story is thin, messy, nonsensical, and at times flat out embarrassing. The set-up in the first act is very rushed, while the second and third act feel like they’re written by a Reddit fanpage (you just know for a fact that Marvel only went in this direction because of the 2 Batmen that have been announced for The Flash). It’s Marvel at its most ‘producty’, and it’s going to trick a lot of people into thinking the film is better than it is. Regardless, I hope Patrick Stewart got a big paycheck for ruining his own perfect send-off in Logan at the very least. A lot of the story beats don’t make sense either, with most of the characters arcs feeling rushed and nonsensical, even despite the copious amounts of exposition that are desperately trying to tie everything together. The choices made with Wanda in the third act are baffling, and I still don’t know what the takeaway is supposed to be by the end of the film. Her motivation is problematic in general, and I don’t like the use of the [insert plot device] corrupts the mind of the villain trope, which is becoming very overused in the MCU (Ant-Man, Winter Soldier) and just a lazy way of forcing a conflict where the villain stays redeemable. The new character (America Chavez) is a boring, underdeveloped plot device, while Strange himself doesn't even have a real arc. It's the kind of film where a lot happens, but very little leaves an actual impression. I’m not sure what happened, but I get the impression that a significant portion of this film was reworked and rewritten during post production. The action didn’t impress me whatsoever, but that’s been a case with these films for a while now (some of the stuff in Shang-Chi excluded). Some of the visuals look tacky and unfinished, the action’s a bunch of people shooting flashing lights at each other, shots don’t linger enough, people move like animated characters, it’s all the usual bs (and this is coming from someone who thinks the action and effects in the first one are still underappreciated to this day). Inbetween the first film and the sequel, Marvel has become a machine that’s now collapsing under its own pressure. If Disney would allow it, they really should go back to making 2-3 properties a year. The consistent mediocrity of their current output is killing their own longevity.
4/10
Oh, and your kids will be fine watching this. I’ve seen some uproar about the ‘horror’ and violence of the film, and it’s honestly not that shocking. There’s way more creepy stuff in some of the Harry Potter and Indiana Jones films (or just your average 80’s kids film in general).
A potentially great film being held hostage by its PG-13 rating and its messy, all over the places screenwriting.
By PG-13 I don't simply mean its visuals/goriness, but most importantly its dialogues, themes, and storytelling it tries to raise. Let me explain.
First, the dialogues.
The film opens with murder and Batman narrating the city's anxious mood. We get a glimpse of noir in this scene, but it soon falls flat due to a very uninteresting, plain, forgettable choice of words Batman used in his narration. Mind you, this is not a jab at Pattinson - Pattinson delivered it nicely. But there is no emotion in his line of words - there is no adjectives, there is no strong feelings about how he regards the city full of its criminals.
Here's a line from the opening scene. "Two years of night has turned me to a nocturnal animal. I must choose my targets carefully. It's a big city. I can't be everywhere. But they don't know where I am. When that light hits the sky, it's not just a call. It's a warning to them. Fear... is a tool. They think I am hiding in the shadows. Watching. Waiting to strike. I am the shadows." Okay? Cool. But sounds like something from a cartoon. What does that tell us about you, Batman?
Compare this to a similar scene uttered by Rorschach in Watchmen. "The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood. And when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. All those liberals and intellectuals, smooth talkers... Beneath me, this awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children, and the night reeks of fornication and bad consciences." You can say that Rorschach is extremely edgy (he is), but from that line alone we can tell his hatred towards the city, and even more so: his perspective, his philosophy that guides him to conduct his life and do what he does.
Rorschach's choice of words is sometimes verbose, but he is always expletive and at times graphic, making it clear to the audience what kind of person he is. Batman in this film does not. His words are always very safe, very carefully chosen, which strikes as an odd contrast to Pattinson's tortured portrayal of Batman as someone with a seemingly pent up anger. His choice of words is very PG-13 so that the kids can understand what Batman is trying to convey.
And this is not only in the opening scene. Throughout the film, the dialogues are written very plainly forgettable. It almost feels like the characters are having those conversations just to move the plot forward. Like that one encounter between Batman and Catwoman/Selina when she broke into the house to steal the passport or when Selina asked to finish off the "rat". They flow very oddly unnatural, as if those conversations are written to make them "trailer-able" (and the scenes indeed do appear on the trailer).
Almost in all crucial plot points the writers feel the need to have the characters to describe what has happened, or to explictly say what they are feeling - like almost every Gordon's scene in crime scene, or Selina's scene when she's speaking to Batman. It feels like the writers feel that the actors' expression just can't cut it and the audience has to be spoonfed with dialogues; almost like they're writing for kids.
Second, the storytelling.
Despite being a film about vengeance-fueled Batman (I actually like that cool "I'm vengeance" line) we don't get to see him actually being in full "vengeance" mode. Still in the opening we see Batman punching some thugs around. That looks a little bit painful but then the thugs seem to be fit enough to run away and Batman let them be. Then in the middle of the film we see Batman does something similar to mafias. Same, he just knocked them down but there's nothing really overboard with that. Then eventually in the car chase scene with the Penguin, Batman seem to be on "full rage mode", but over... what? He was just talking to Penguin a moment ago. The car chase scene itself is a bit pointless if not only to show off the Batmobile. And Batman did nothing to the Penguin after, just a normal questioning, not even harsher than Bale's Batman did to Heath's Joker in The Dark Knight - not in "'batshit insane' cop" mode as Penguin put it.
Batman's actions look very much apprehensive and controlled. Nothing too outrageous. Again, at odds with Pattinson's portrayal that seem to be full of anger; he's supposed to be really angry but somehow he still does not let his anger take the best of him. The only one time he went a bit overboard that shocked other characters is when he kept punching a villain near the end of the film. But even then it's not because his anger; it's because he injected some kind of drug (I guess some adrenaline shot). A very safe way to drop a parent-friendly message that "drug is bad, it can change you" in a PG-13 film.
And all that supposed anger... we don't get to see why he is angry and where his anger is directed at. Compare this to Arthur Fleck in Joker where it is clear as sky why Arthur would behave the way the does in the film. I mean we know his parents' death troubled him, but it's barely even discussed, not even in brief moments with Alfred (except in one that supposedly "shocking" moment). So... where's your vengeance, Mr. Vengeance? And what the hell are you vengeancing on?
Speaking of "shocking" moment... this is about the supposed Wayne family's involvement in the city's criminal affairs that has been teased early in the film. Its revelation was very anticlimactic: the supposed motive and the way it ended up the way it is, all very childish. If the film wanted the Wayne to be a "bad person", there's a lot of bads that a billionaire can do: tax evasion, blood diamond, funding illegal arms trade, fending off unions, hell, they can even do it the way the Waynes in Joker did it: hints of sexual abuses. But no, it has to be some bloody murder again, and all for a very trivial reason of "publicity". As if the film has to make it clear to the kids: "hey this guy's bad because he killed someone!" Which COULD work if the film puts makes taking someone's life has a very serious consequence. But it just pales to the serial killing The Riddler has done.
Even more anticlimactic considering how Bruce Wayne attempted to find a resolve in this matter only takes less than a 5 minute scene! It all involves only a bit of dialogues which boils down to how Thomas Wayne has a good reason to do so. Bruce somehow is convinced with that and has a change of heart instantly, making him looks very gullible.
And of course the ending is very weak and disappointing. First, Riddler's final show directly contradicts his initial goal to expose and destroy the corrupt elites. What he did instead is making the lives of the poor more difficult, very oxymoron for someone supposed to be as smart as him.
Second, the way Batman just ended up being "vengeance brings nothing and I should save people more than hurting people" does not get enough development to have him to say that in the end. Again - where's your vengeance? And how did you come to such character development if nothing is being developed on? And let's not get to how it's a very safe take against crime and corruption that closely resembles Disney's moralistic pandering in Marvel Cinematic Universe film.
Last, the visuals.
I'm not strictly speaking about gore, though that also factors in the discussion. The film sets this up as a film about hunting down a serial killer. But the film barely shows how cruel The Riddler can be to his victims. Again, back to the opening scene: we get it, Riddler killed the guy, but it does not look painful at all as it looks Riddler just knocked him twice. The sound design is very lacking that it does not seem what The Riddler done was conducted very painfully. Riddler then threw away his murder weapon, but we barely see blood. Yet when Gordon arrived to the crime scene, he described the victim as being struck multiple times with blood all over. What?
Similarly, when Riddler forced another victim to wear a bomb in his neck. The situation got pretty tense, but when the bomb eventually blow off, we just got some very small explosion like a small barrel just exploded, not a human being! I mean I'm not saying we need a gory explosion with head chopped off like in The Boys, but it does not look like what would happen if someone's head got blown off. Similarly when another character got almost blown off by a bomb - there's no burnt scar at all.
Why the hell are they setting up those possibly gory deaths and scars if they're not going to show how severe and painful these are? At least not the result - we don't need to see blood splattered everywhere - just how painful the process is. Sound design and acting of the actors (incl. twitching, for example) would've helped a lot even we don't see the gore, like what James Franco did in The 127 Hours or Hugh Jackman in Logan. In this film there's almost no tense at all resulting from those.
I'm not saying this film is terrible.
The acting, given the limited script they had, is excellent. Pattinson did his best, so did Paul Dano (always likes him as a villain), Zoe Kravitz, and the rest. Cinematography is fantastic; the lighting, angle, everything here is very great that makes a couple of very good trailers - perhaps one could even say that the whole film trades off coherency for making the scenes "trailer-able". The music is iconic, although with an almost decent music directing. And I guess this detective Batman is a fresh breath of air.
But all that does not make the movie good as in the end it's still all over the places and very PG-13.
Especially not with the 3 hours runtime where many scenes feel like a The Walking Dead filler episode.
If you're expecting a Batman film with similar gritty, tone to The Dark Knight trilogy or Joker, this film is not for you. But if you only want a live-action cartoon like pre-Nolan Batmans or The Long Halloween detective-style film, well, I guess you can be satisfied with this one.
If you've read the books...forget about them. LMAO. This movie takes the original plot and YEETS it ten minutes in...LITERALLY. Ten minutes into the set up and I'm whispering over to my friend, "Wait, did this happen??" (Spoiler alert: It did not.) My friend (shoutout Megan) and I were constantly asking "WTF IS GOING ON" but not necessarily in a bad way? If you're a stickler for the books, you'll be disappointed, but if you're willing to see where this adaption takes you, I think you'll be in for a pleasant ride. Disregarding book accuracy, I think the movie does a great job setting up a very complex premise and telling a rounded story (although it definitely helps that I've read the books and already knew the world). The way they depicted the Noise was absolutely gorgeous and genius; it was my main concern when they announced this would be hitting the big screen. How do you visualize something like that, you know? I think they really pulled it off, and Todd Hewitt's constant thoughts out loud with Tom Holland's dorky charm made this movie a lot funnier than I thought it would be.
If they don't make a sequel for this (I'd be surprised if they make enough money and attention to do so), I'm not going to be too disappointed. The movie ends on a solid note that is pretty satisfactory, but it does leave room for a sequel (especially for non-book watchers who definitely would have more questions than answers). Really, this movie at its core was just trying to cram too much stuff in, so some of the plot points come across as shallow and thrown in just to advance the plot. If you read the book, you can fill in the gaps, but if you didn't, it might come across as an overly ambitious sci-fi trying to capitalize on Holland's current stardom. Not that I'm complaining...we all know I'm only watching Cherry for him. HA.
Absolutely unoriginal and boring. Incredible special effects.
None of the new characters have enough time or backstory for us to care about them, but they're also not throw away characters - the writers seemed to think we would be too triggered if a single good guy died. In fact, nobody died the entire movie - 100% of the enemies are bots. There aren't even meaningful interactions with agents outside of the ones Neo simulates.
The entire thing was just a big callback to what they did in the original trilogy. Lots of allusion and direct rips. All with killer special effects, but no substance. They think they're being meta and hip by acknowledging it, but that doesn't make it better; their horrible post credits scene about "just needing to elicit an emotional response" and "uploading the catrix" makes it a lot worse.
Nothing in the movie has any deeper meaning. There are zero stakes. The new human city isn't at risk. The Matrix isn't at risk. Literally the entire movie is about Neo and Trinity needing to wake up and get out of the Matrix - if they don't, they will continue living, just inside the Matrix.
None of Smith's motives were clear. He went from being a very strong and interesting character in the original trilogy to a very weak and aimless character here.
Cheapening the power of the One is really detrimental to the film. The Analyst's idea that "Neo was nothing special by himself, he needed Trinity" is ridiculous. It's rather as the Architect said "Neo's attachment to humanity was very intimate." He was still the One with or without Trinity, and his powers were unique to that position. So the idea that the machines can somehow use Neo and Trinity to enhance power generation of the Matrix by keeping them close is both fundamentally flawed on top of being ridiculous. And then letting Trinity be the one to fly them out of danger at the end just steals everything from Neo.
Despite everyone assuring Neo that his fight mattered, it seems that the world is almost identical to where it was at the start of the original Matrix movie. The Matrix is a prison. The humans are hiding in a city to keep back the hostile machines. It doesn't seem like they're freeing many minds. The only difference is that now some machines are on their side - something that's never really explained. This new alliance has yielded the incredible result of.. fruit. Neo's entire fight gave humanity fruit. That's it.
The Analyst and the machines seemed incompetent and weak. The machine on machine violence was very interesting and could have been instrumental in explaining the resurgence in war and restoration of the Matrix as a prison - so naturally it was only mentioned once offhand.
The world wasn't setup clearly or interestingly in a way to support a story existing within it. There is no substance, no stakes, and no point.
Overall it's a huge disappointment. The fact that the Reloaded and Revolutions were better movies that were more coherent and added more substance to the universe is testament to the extreme failure of this move.
Cool concept but terrible, terrible writing.
None of the characters behaves in a believable way, it all feels staged (you know those lines that just happen in movies but just don't feel right in real life? Like "there's no time to explain, just follow me" or "we've got company"), even at the beginning at the resort, before the supernatural part kicks in, like a series of scenes almost unrelated one to the other and patched together, each with the precise purpose to stimulate a feeling in the audience or to get the plot ahead. Characters falling as flies like in predictable horror movies.
Some unexplicable sloppy screenplay moments:
The ending was the best and more naturally progressing part of the movie
(A[Popular character actor]) + (B[Video game plot]) + (C[Russian villains) = 2021 Hollywood movies.
Brett Gelman plays a Russian terrorist in this movie. Groundbreaking. Will ever Yanks give Russian roles to actual Russians?? NO! Every now and then, I wonder whether Russians are as obsessed with Americans as the Americans are obviously psychotically obsessed with Russia. In this movie, the African-American 'hero' killed a bunch of Russians who had absolutely nothing to do with the plot because why not?! He is an imperialist. But he is a 'black' imperialist so yay, diversity!
Here is the 'brilliant' idea in this film - the federal government is mad because Americans are more divide amongst each other and they want them to hate a foreign adversary. Haha, so American, right? But who to hate?? Hmm. Muslims and Latin Americans are out of the picture because somehow they are both races and it's apparently 'racist' to hate them. So, Yanks are left with ... Russians. Again. I know Americans masturbate to violent scenes in movies when the Americans are winning by killing Russians. This movie is just for them. Enjoy!
The writing is also atrocious, no new ideas or an ounce of creativity at all. Like, at all. Originality has now been successfully wiped out by 100% in mainstream American filmmaking.
