It wasn't bad. But honestly I'm very very disappointed this isn't a TV show. I misread the trailer and wasn't expecting a movie. I think this would have been amazing as TV show. It could have done what the True Lies tv show failed to do. It would have done what I expect the upcoming Mr and Mrs Smith show will fail to do. Kaley did a solid job as an action character. She's no Megan Fox in Rogue (2020) [awful movie but Fox was excellent] but she was solid. I'm not her biggest fan but I don't hate her and, respect where respect is due, her acting was more than okay. David however, like the plot, was under-fulfilled. I think he could have done more with his character of the straightman muggle husband. The script just didn't give any room for it. They did have more chemistry than I expected they would. I saw the trailer and in no way did I think I would buy them as a couple 100%, I was expecting maybe 60% buy in, but I kinda do.
Antagonists Bill Nighy and Connie Nielsen were enjoyably bad. Though Connie was under written. I didn't really get that slightly psychotic character from her the way the script seemed to want me to.
The tone of the movie was uneven. You're never really quite rocked out of the mood of the movie, but you've never sitting comfortable in it either. Mr. and Mrs. Smith the movie was very much a sexy spy "kill a bunch of guys" movie with likes of whiplash pans. True Lies the movie was very much an Arnold comedy with a bunch of one-liners and amusing growls. There are others that are more about the romance like say Mr Right or This Means War. Which are all very much comedic spy stuff with a heavy heavy dose of RomCom. The ingredients were there to make this the variation that focused on Romance with a capital R. I haven't seen one of those in a while and like I said they had the chemistry for it. But the movie wants to be an R-rated comedy so it tries to have it's cake and eat it too.
Almost every problem I had with this would have been resolved if it had been a full season length. Heck I might have even bonded with the kids. They could be given personalities and then maybe I'd care when their health is threatened.
If last year's Top Gun Maverick gave everyone the slightest bit of hope in regards to films that click with the general audience and blow up at the box office, this is the kind of film that'll make any self-respecting film fan lose all hope. Here's the deal: kids will pretty much like this by default, adults who are looking for validation of their childhood obsession will like it, and people who show up to see an actual movie won't. It's pretty much the blandest, calculated, do-nothing film they could've made out of this material. The animation is devoid of style and looks like it was originally rendered for a Dreamworks project back in 2008, the voice acting is mostly ass, it triggers the nostalgia & reference button way too often, the story & characters are watered down to a point where they're almost non-existent, it's not funny and its boomer rock soundtrack choices make absolutely no sense. It's irredeemable trash, like every product that rolls of the Illumination Entertainment conveyor belt. Nevertheless, I'm willing to bet that due to the large fanbase of the IP, this will be one of those films where in the short term some of the discourse will insist that "some people/critics don't know how to have fun" or "it's made for the fans" (only for those same people to deny ever liking it in the long haul, of course). Here’s hoping Illumination doesn’t listen to those voices in the same way that DC did after the release of Suicide Squad. This is not a foundation to build a franchise on.
2.5/10
It’s funny to know that this movie was intended to come out before the pandemic, because by releasing it now it might provide some unintentional food for thought for the morons who believe that a certain virus was actually conceived in a lab.
I genuinely wonder if those people will read that far into this film, I’d find it deeply amusing.
The good news is that there are definetely a lot of things this does better than Spectre.
The action is memorable and way more visceral (though it doesn’t quite surpass the Mission Impossible Fallout bar) and the characters are generally more interesting.
I loved the women in this in particular, they all have distinct personalities and they’re not flawless human beings or overpowered (e.g. Ana de Armas is bubbly and fun, but at the same time she’s inexperienced and chaotic), like some blockbusters tend to do.
At the same time, we shouldn’t pretend that this film invented strong female characters for Bond, especially after we’ve had Eva Green and Judi Dench.
Meanwhile, James Bond himself has a very satisfying arc in this film, which isn’t too dissimilar to Tony Stark’s arc in Avengers Endgame , with a bold pay off in the third act. I’m happy that this film gave us confirmation that Mads Mikkelsen didn’t end up castrating Bond during that scene in Casino Royale.
It’s paced very well, more like a traditional action film and less like a drama, which was the case for Skyfall and Spectre. Don’t let the runtime intimidate you, it doesn’t feel longer than 2 hours.
And finally, the whole thing just looks great, it’s produced excuisetely. The cinematography isn’t quite Skyfall level, but Roger Deakins is an impossible bar to clear for any cinematographer.
Unfortunately, this film really struggles with its tone, bouncing between some cartoony stuff and very dark, dramatic moments.
It wants to honor the traditional Bond stuff, but at the same time it can’t let go of the roots of the Daniel Craig iteration, which makes it feel like an uneven artistic vision, because the foundation of Craig’s Bond rests on this idea that this isn’t the traditional Bond.
It’s going for the same tone as Skyfall, meaning its pretty serious, while also incorporating some campy stuff with the plot and the villain (but never going into straight up silly territory, like Spectre).
The problem is that you could still take the villain and the plot seriously in Skyfall (Bardem is still scary despite the camp, the hacking plot feels grounded), and that isn’t the case here, the plot goes too much into sci-fi territory for that.
Also, Rami Malek didn’t leave much of an impression on me, the accent is wonky and he feels like a stock villain (very much like Waltz in the last film). There’s not really an interesting motivation there, or an interesting evil plan. It’s a campy and theatrical plan, and it feels very familiar.
Finally, this film can be fairly predictable at times (for example: Matilde being Bond’s daughter was extremely obvious, but they still try to somewhat play it as a twist. The same goes for Lea Seydoux being framed in prologue.).
So, it’s good, it pushes the creative boundaries of what a Bond movie is in some ways, which is the best stuff.
But I kinda hope they bring in someone with a fresh, fully realized artistic vision to really shake things up again for the next reboot.
7/10
Ps for the Bond producers: please, please make a spin off with Ana de Armas’ character.
An underwhelming effort from a company that seems to have fallen behind the curve. Creatively it’s pulling too much from Zootopia and Inside Out while not adding much of its own flavour, almost every choice in this movie is predictable. Sure, the racism/prejudice commentary is more aggressive now that we’ve entered the post-Trump era (seriously, you should go back and look at how Zootopia handled that same topic, it feels quaint now), but besides that it doesn’t bring much to the table. The worldbuilding lacks the clever intricacies of Zootopia, the pretty animation style has some unique textures but it’s no Across the Spider-verse, and emotionally it feels more like Illumination than Pixar. It’s a very straightforward, cheesy romcom with a formulaic set-up for the main characters (think Notting Hill, Crazy Rich Asians, and countless other movies your mom loves), some ok comedy (bad puns notwithstanding) and a boring adventure (fixing pipelines, how exciting). The score’s pretty interesting because it seems to pull a lot from Indian folk music, on the other hand the songs sound generic and overproduced. Overall, I’d easily recommend this over some other animated films from this year, as this does genuinely try as a movie. However, that doesn’t change that I expect both children and adults to be mostly bored by this.
4.5/10
THE UGLY: ‘WE CAN BE HEROES’
WRITING: 45
ACTING: 40
LOOK: 65
SOUND: 50
FEEL: 45
NOVELTY: 50
ENJOYMENT: 55
RE-WATCHABILITY: 20
INTRIGUE: 35
EXPECTATIONS: 40
The Good:
The early 2000s style, colourful and campy superhero film is awkwardly dated and fascinatingly old-school at the same time. This film really embraces that Spy Kids or Sharkboy and Lavagirl vibe.
I love the lighthearted and comical approach to superheroes and how that creates some of the most outrageous superpowers I've ever seen.
Even though they are goofy and over the top, the actions scenes are fun and imaginative, utilizing the wide cast with varying powers fairly well.
Pedro Pascal seems to have a great time so it's a shame his part is smaller than I expected it to be.
The twist at the end is pretty good, to be fair.
The Bad:
A lot of the comedy is very childish and goody, but then again, I'm not part of the target audience.
The child actors are pretty atrocious, which is a shame since there are loads of them.
There is much of a plot. It's mostly one goofy action scene after another, followed by montages of different kinds. There is next to no narrative content in between.
The lack of compelling villains for adult viewers and the monotonous tone make this film less engaging for those who aren't children or young at heart.
Ultimately, there are too many characters involved, which means that the plot is busy and moves along with such a speed that it doesn’t allow for breathing space and barely has time to develop the charcters properly.
The Ugly:
Man, slow-motion superpowers really make life hard to live!
VERDICT:
A nostalgically childish, mostly nonsensical and colourful superhero adventure for the kids doesn’t feel satisfying for adults unless toyäre a huge fan of Rodriguez’s earlier work.
45% = :heavy_minus_sign: = UGLY
Having fought for this film since 2017, organising and running the majority of major events in that time, I was afforded the great honour and privilege of getting an early access pass for this film.
What can I say about "The Snyder Cut"? Overall I thoroughly enjoyed it. While it does not reach the heights of it's predecessors BvS and MoS on an emotional or philosophical level, it is a film packed with "oh my God moments" and action sequences that set the standard for all future action movies.
The film is a crowd pleaser. It will be the best received film in Zack Snyder's filmography by critics and the general audience. I do wonder if it will also be for Zack Snyder's fans.
In this movie the villains outshine the heroes by far. Steppenwolf is vicious and menacing, but it is Darkseid (or more accurately his presence) that dominates this movie. Everything is in service of him. With so many heroes it is a challenge giving them a chance to shine. Batman and Superman are particularly short changed, and there was a higher expectation regarding feeling the absence of Superman following the events of BvS. Others such as the Flash and Cyborg saw their roles vastly improved in this cut of the film.
As far as differences with the theatrical cut go, there are plenty. Purely by nature of being 4 hours vs the 1hr 50minute theatrical cut. There are also differences with respect to the nature of characters, specifically Wonder Woman. However, I must admit, a large number of edits to existing scenes by Joss Whedon in the theatrical cut served absolutely no purpose. The changes made being for no apparent reason to serve any narrative or plot in Whedon's story (eg the Cornfield scene and the discussion between Aquaman and Mera). Other edited scenes were wildly different, primarily the history lesson where the unified peoples of Earth held the forces of Apokolips at bay.
So after 3 years the question is "Was it all worth it?"
That this film exists at all is a victory for artistic freedom, and that it is so much better than the version from 2017 defacto means that it was worth it. But will this film hold a place in my heart beside Man of Steel and Batman v Superman? Time will tell. Zack Snyder films are famous for standing the test of time and improving with every viewing. I hope this one does too.
When coming up with the idea for this film, I imagine Nolan asking himself: can you take a Roger Moore era Bond plot, up the amount of sci-fi and dial down the camp? Yes, you can, but this isn’t exactly the way to do it.
Pros:
- I love it when directors aim big. Give me someone who tries something as ambitious as this over the average blockbuster anyday.
- Directing & cinematography, as is to be expected from a Nolan film at this point.
- Score. Especially during the opening scene and inversion stuff.
- Action sequences, especially the car chase.
- Most of the acting is solid. JDW is excellent, Robert Pattinson and Elizabeth Debicki are great.
Cons:
- This film has been edited to shit. It’s got pacing that’s all over the place, and there’s a rushed sense to it all. Scenes aren’t allowed to breathe, exposition is delivered so rapidly that you barely have any time to process it. I’m lucky to have a brain that can keep up with difficult plot mechanics, and yes, I could follow what was happening all the way through, but it all makes for a film that’s inaccessible for most people on their first watch. Unfortunately, it definitely doesn’t feel like the film that mainstream audiences are going to embrace during the time of a pandemic.
- Just like with Dunkirk, Nolan once again deliberately chooses to not flesh out his characters, resulting in a film that feels emotionally shallow. It’s very hard to connect with the film on a personal level in that regard. Take Inception, for example. Even when you strip away all the amazing stuff from that film (rotating cities, hotel fight), there’s still an emotional core about a man who’s been estranged from his kids because of what happened to his wife. There’s a reason why we want Leonardo DiCaprio to succeed at implanting this idea into Cillian Murphy’s head. Tenet has none of that. Who’s the protagonist? Who’s Robert Pattinson? What’s this agency they’re working for? We just don’t know.
- The sound mix. The dialogue just isn’t very clear for a lot of the film. Why they didn’t use ADR for some scenes (especially when people wear masks, as that’s easy to edit around) is beyond me. I honestly started to read the subtitles after the opening scene.
- Kenneth Branagh. He’s a great actor, but his hammy performance feels like it comes out of a different movie (a campy Roger Moore era Bond movie, that is)
- I found the climax to be uninspired, and a little dull.
- Minor point, but there’s some really unsubtle foreshadowing during the fight at the airport ( when you have a character unmask an inverted person offscreen, and they look surprised, who do you think it’s going to be? )
Overall, I feel like this could’ve easily been an 8 if the film was about 30 minutes longer, thereby taking its time to flesh out the characters, world and mechanics of the plot. It almost feels like WB forced Nolan to trim a lot of scenes in order to get a shorter runtime, but that’s also doubtful as WB isn’t beyond releasing movies that are way shittier at 3 hours (It: Chapter 2). Besides, he’s Christopher Nolan, so I assume he has final cut. As it stands, I just cannot recommend it.
5/10
They are all the ingredients to make it a classic comedy, but it just doesn't take.
The casting is amazing, that's for sure. It's full of cool ideas and nice jokes all along the way.
- the daylight time being weird
- Most of Tilda Swinton character
- The make up for the dead
- The zombies looking for chardonnay and wifi instead of brains
- Driver's character direct assumption that it's zombies
- The "Is it a wild beast ? Several wild beasts ?" bit
- Zombie Iggy Pop
- the wtf exit of Tilda Swinton
- Murray and Driver discussing the theme song or the script
- etc.
And for all this I can't count it as bad. But it just doesn't fit into a story. Between this bits it all seems long and boring. And most of them are not even exploited correctly. A 20 minutes version of it would have worked a lot better.
The daylight times being weird ? Nice, but what about it ? Nothing.
Murray and Driver talk as themselves instead of the characters could have been interesting, but it's not even correctly used. When asked how he knows it end badly, Driver answers he read the script and Murray says he only had his scenes. Well, he IS in the litteral last scene of the film, the one that ends badly... So he should have known too. It just feels like it's been added there to add a few lines and that's it, it's not been though through.
Swinton's character is good with a sword. But it's 5 scenes of her decapitating zombies behing her back. OK. Show me her fighting 50 zombies, give me something new not 5 copies of the same scene!
As for the chatacters, Bill Murray has been playing various versions of the same character since what ? Lost in Translation ? And I usually love it. It kinda works here too. But not enough.
Adam Driver is actually quite ok. So I'm starting to think it's not his fault and Kylo Ren was just an horrible miscast.
Tilda Swinton is creepy af, just as usual, and has the best character. The way she speaks, the way she walks, her makeup for the deads, her sword skills, etc. Every scene where she's in is good.
Nice to see Steve Buscemi and Danny Glover, but again, they're like the usual cinematic version of themselves here. They feel more like cameos.
And then several characters seem to have been added just as fillers. The kids in detention center ? They do nothing, do not interact with anybody, or with zombies. They just go through it. You can totally erase them and lose nothing. The Selena Gomez crew ? Same thing. Well, you lose some scenes of various guys drooling over Gomez's small shorts and yes, the great head chopping scene, ok, but it could have been done with any other character. Hermit Bob is observing as an outsider. Doesn't bring anything to the story. And Chloe Sevigny's character is just painful to watch.
I get the concept, I loved some slow movies and watching some characters that are on the side and do not bring anything to the story. But here nothing ever works. It's almost heartbreaking to see the movie try so hard, imagine what it was supposed to be and see it fail so hard.
