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.
Knives Out perhaps is not the best written movie out in this year, but surely it is one among the most entertaining.
Saying the film is predictable is not wrong, but it is missing the point. Just toward the first halves the film dropped plenty of clues toward pointing the suspect of the crime, but the point was not about "who did it", but "how and why it was done." Indeed, perhaps in the first half audience is intentionally misled to get the impression of typical murder mystery through Knives Out stylistic "who did it" fashion, but as the film goes it shows that there is more to it especially since what and who cause the murder is already revealed in the middle of the film.
If one pays attention to the details. audience have been invited to ask ourselves about the mystery of the process of the murder - on the continuously shaking legs and the barking dogs - and even the especially charming Daniel Craig asked us, almost invitingly, who really hired him and why? The twist and turn is not about the result; but the process.
And doing that, Rian Johnson is still able to slip a neat "moral of the story", with a rather bittersweet moment when the truth is finally revealed. "You're a good person who follows your heart" might be one of the most repeatedly cliche, but taking a backdrop of distrust and money in a family drama, Johnson's words spoken through Craig's character with his characteristic accent made the delivery much more impactful. The slick cinematography and excellent music directing in the whole movie supports this perfectly paced murder mystery.
There is a notable questionable holes that may push you from your suspension of disbelief, but still: a delightful Christmas story to end the year; Knives Out is one film I'd recommend to get you absorbed to its intricate details.
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.
Intense. But the ending seems a bit disconnected.
Story-wise this is a rather weak installment to close the Ip Man saga. The plot moves in a rather awkward direction, with fights happening in almost a cartoony/video games fashion where opponents come and go because the plot makes them have to (the alley fight with Bruce Lee and karate guy is almost straight out of video games). Performance-wise, the American actors are quite unconvincing, almost distracting. Even Scott Adkins. The performance is not bad but it's almost comically evil that it's too easy to dislike the character - not because he seems like a "bad guy", but because he attempts hard to look bad.
The theme itself tacks on contemporary issues such as racial discrimination and immigration. It plays out Ip Man's recurring theme of us vs them, what makes this attempt more interesting is the touch of parenthood given to the story, as Ip Man struggles to raise his son. There are a point or two that can be made about living as an immigrant family in the United States on this theme, but you know that a kung-fu film has jumped the shark when they have to move the setting to the distant West. Especially considering Ip Man 3 has given an emotional closing that seems to properly close the saga. That being said, the ending of Ip Man 4 is still touching with a throwback to Ip Man 3's ending (the wife listening to Ip Man's training) and Ip Man 1's last fight (a blow to the neck).
In the end though, we watch kung-fu movies not for the story, but the fights. The fights are not completely focused on Donnie Yen's performance as Ip Man; here they finally are able to give the long-awaited chance to Bruce Lee's fights (performed by Danny Chan). The choreographic is a bit more stylistic and dramatic compared to the first two Ip Man's movies, it is less tense but still satisfying to watch. Then again, considering the strong hit the first two films in both story and action-wise, I consider Ip Man 4 a touching but kinda unnecessary ending to the saga.
So much attentions were put into the details of the film. From the surveillance streets of London with its Orwellian "Please Report Suspicious Activity" poster to the Bexhill of refugee where the unfortunate multiculturals are dumped in to the slums, marking their presence with graffiti. Released in 2006, it's as if the has already foresaw what happens a decade later with its take on the issue of refugee, the age pyramid problem, while still being a film of its age, characterized by post-9/11 distrust of the government, represented excellently by the most likely state nearing authoritarianism, Great Britain.
I admit, however, that the film can be a bit tedious to watch at times. Character relationship gets a build-up just a moment prior their death. There were rather trivial shots; like of Theo wearing sandals, crossing the forests, etc where it spends quite a few seconds, kinda making the film runs longer than it should. These might be references to specific real-life events or arts, as it does reference a lot of things from Auscwhitz-inspired detainment camp to Michelangelo's La Pietas, but I didn't get it.
Still, Children of Men manages to build a convincing world, and watching it as the events unfold was intense.
The Flash proves to be a competent superhero film. Not the best, but a breath of fresh air amidst the hot mess that has flooded the genre in recent years. It stands on its own, requiring only a basic understanding of past character portrayals, unlike the convoluted soap opera often seen in DCEU and MCU lines.
Despite its ensemble of superheroes and characters, the film manages to strike enough of the right chords.
It balances humor without overdoing it like Shazam: Fury of the Gods, Black Adam, or any Marvel Cinematic Universe films in the last 10 years. The fanservice of Keaton's Batman is tastefully done, providing memorable lines and explosive gimmicks without overstaying his welcome. The action sequences are well-choreographed, particularly those involving Affleck's and Keaton's Batman, although the initial speedster scene falls somewhat short as Days of Future Past already sets the bar high. The most important, the film possesses a straight enough plotline to propels the story forward, but still offers moments of intrigue and uncertainty where you would ask the direction the film will be taking.
The film however stumbles in Kara/Supergirl's parts. The plot revolving around General Zod and Kara's arrival and departure feels clumsy. It underplays the significance established in Man of Steel regarding Clark's purpose on Earth, not to mention the spandex that Kara somehow brought everywhere makes her feels comical. Sasha Calle seems unable to pull a good Kara impression; her attempt to embody a complex yet tough character feels like forced, relying on screaming and unnerving facial expressions, and her decisions throughout the films appear abrupt. Her bitterness leaves more to be desired as it seems to be quickly resolved. The grand battle feels tonally inconsistent with some rock music, Keaton's soundtrack, and Kara's theme blasting over each other. Although Michael Shannon delivers a menacing performance as Zod, the thin plot he walks on undermines his presence.
Fortunately, The Flash remains true to its scale.
While the film introduces multiverses, at its heart is Barry's personal desire to save his mother. Barry isn't driven by a grand mission to save the multiverse; he's a reluctant hero who finally acts when met a seemingly dead end. One might say that the resolution offered by the film presents a fatalistic view of history, unlike the practically optimistic tone of Avengers: Endgame, but the strength of the film is not to have the final say of all of these actually work: as the climax unfolds, both Barry and the audience are left wondering where the breaking point lies in history that must remain untouched. The film avoids drowning the audience in pseudoscience for explaining the multiverse, opting for Keaton's short and humorous spaghetti metaphor. The most compelling aspect is the film's ability to maintain a personal scale despite the high stakes, leaving the audience emotionally moved with effective lines in the resolution that in the first 15 minutes of the film seemed clichéd. The ending provides a pleasant surprise, setting the stage for a fresh start in the DC Universe.
Without boasting the concept of multiverses like Doctor Strange: Multiverses of Madness, The Flash is an enjoyable soft-reboot multiversal superhero film that leaves quite an impression. Not the best superhero film certainly, but perhaps still ranking among the better ones in the multiverse/time-reversing subgenre of superhero films, possibly trailing only a few steps behind Days of Future Past.
Just from early glance you can see how historical depth and accuracy has been work throughout this movie, even to the tiniest bit like accent and the character's grammatical structure. Supported by Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano's impressive acting, There Will Be Blood is a intriguing look on an oilman's life in 19th century. However I feel as a movie the director spent some scenes a bit too long and let the bridge from one scene to another unexplained (like Plainview's relationship with his son), especially with the 2,5 hours long duration. This is not to say the movie is boring--I keep being intrigued to see where it eventually ends--it's just it feels a bit disconnected sometimes.
Perhaps because this movie tries hard to mirror Lord of the Rings - to be an "LoTR prequel" - it does not succeed too much in being a good movie.
First we get the continuation of Smaug's terror on the Laketown. This whole event that eventually leads to Smaug's demise feels so much hurried. We see Smaug ravaging the town, we see people fleeing in fear, but we don't see any actual horror preyed upon the people of Laketown. It feels like "just another dragon's burning routine on another town nearby". And the hero who is destined by blood to beat down dragon seems to have lost his mind when jumping straight into the tower without preparation. He even forgot to carry the legendary arrow!
Perhaps because the action, the tense, has been drown so much. When the great dragon is finally taken down, there is no sense of accomplishment at all. This Smaug scene should have been included in the previous movie. The film opens with a rather unsatisfying pace, a rather tedious 30 minutes, before diving into the main event which is the subtitle of this movie: "The Battle of the Five Armies".
This, as the subtitle indicates, should have been a grand event as much as the LoTR's Battle of the Black Gate or Battle of Pelennor fields. Especially since the movie tries so hard to be a LoTR's prequel: epic story of war and a rising darkness.
But nope. The battle itself is not as grandeur as LoTR. The occasional comic relief (like we usually see between Gimli and Legolas) does not work here either.
First, there is almost no buildup for the war. None. We suddenly get an elf army, Thorin's hard-headedness, his distant kin, all out of nowhere. We are presented with bunch of gold-hungry people ready for war without a strong reason to go for war. We see no explanation for Thranduil's hunger for their crown jewel (except for "it's our people's jewel") and so is for Thorin's sudden craziness for gold.
Thorin's greed is supposed to be the main theme of The Hobbit, but we only a slight clue leading to his greedy craziness. It was foreshadowed in the second movie and I was expecting it to be more laid out in this third movie.
Second, the war itself is rather... how to say it, just a clash of weapons. The pacing is very terrible. Especially when the orc armies finally came. The tense between the dwarves and elves were building prior to the orc's arrival, but it gets broken fast (the dwarves just go after the orcs very soon as if they're really that blood-thirsty). Also the title is "Battle of the Five Armies" but the ones who get into action are only dwarves, the elves, and the orcs. The human is just there struggling to survive and the eagles, the fifth army, came very late and were only shown in a flash. We don't even get a view how the war is resolved except for a distant view - a glimpse - that the orc's army is waning. We don't even told how is the Arkenstone - the supposed cause of the conflict - is doing after the war broke!
All this are accompanied with a too-often comic relief brought to you by Alfrid, the former Laketown mayor's second-in-command. Seriously he is really distracting. He bears no relevance to the story at all but the writer keeps bringing him up again and again.
Third, the ultimate showdown between Thorin and Azog is really disappointing. Thorin, who bears so much grudge with the orc who killed his grandfather, fights with no passion at all. The hot-blooded guy who we usually see being rash to many people, do not seem to show his contempt to the very person who brought death to his own family! As a king with remarkable combat prowess, Thorin also looks really clumsy fighting Azog, like his previous combat experience has just gone suddenly.
I just can't understand how easy he thought Azog was dead. I mean it's Azog; it's the guy who he knows himself (indicated in the previous two movies) is very hard to kill. He doesn't even bother to deal a finishing blow and hopes freeze will caught Azog dead! It's like the burning passion in his eyes, when he met Azog face-to-face in the forest (in the previous movie), it's like... it's like that passion has just gone. Gone with the wind.
Last, the epilogue. The dialogue between Tauriel and Thranduil when she is mourning is REALLY REALLY cheesy ("because it was real," really?). Thranduil also sounds so confusingly random when Legolas decides to go ("your mother loves you"... so? Wasn't it Tauriel who brought up the whole "love" stuff?).
It's such a shame because the first and second movie are at least decent.
I really want to love this movie, but it's really a jumbled mess with little to no plot at all.
I mean, it's obvious that it follows the ordinary formula: there's a world-threatening supervillain and we're gonna take them down. But the line connecting the scenes to make a whole coherent story does not seem to exist at all. Even the characters don't seem to realize that they're facing a bigger threat--though they seem to resolve it quickly.
The movie reeks with flashbacks, and a lot of them don't really serve any real purpose aside from showing the character's past. There are several scenes which intents to make the audience relate to the character, but it's depicted so abruptly that it doesn't seem to matter. Also there are a lot of subplots that don't tie the story at all and can be conveniently removed, i.e. the Joker (Jared Leto) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) subplots. Seriously, it's really distracting to the point of disturbing the movie flow.
Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn takes most of the screen time, which is okay-ish actually, but some scenes just don't give much useful narrative to the audience. Like both characters' introduction and the way they ended up in prison, it actually makes them look pretty dumb (how come they got caught that easily?). A number of scenes just come out of nowhere, like the scenes where they're drinking in the bar.
The jokes here actually fits well, however. It's not distracting to the point of annoying like Avengers (both movies).
As for the characters, aside from Katana (Karen Fukuhara) who keeps on blabbering in Japanese (which no one understands), the character designs are actually unique. I like the gangster-ish touch to Joker and Harley, and the rascal dipshit look of Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney). The acting is also great, mostly. However they're not memorable characters: just flashy costumes with shallow depth.
Seriously, this movie unfortunately does not live up to the hype. Especially when I'm really wishing this can make DC Universe stands strong..
The film has interesting set of characters. Our hero Lenny (Ralph Fiennes) is not the typical action hero with martial prowess, instead he got his loyal, reliable friend Mace (Angela Bassett) who always come at desperate measure. It puts Lenny closer to us the audience, with us hoping Mace would come when Lenny slowly unveils the mystery he is facing.
However, with a considerable one hour-long build up, the ending to Strange Days seem to be a bit rushed and turned out the answer to the mystery pretty much simple--too simple, even. The characters involved in the mystery also don't seem to have a strong motive to be involved with the round of events to begin with. It makes the tense kinda wear off really fast and left an unsatisfying feel as the credits roll on.
It's lovely. I like Juli Baker's characterization, she's a smart girl with great personality.
I always have soft spot for romantic movies though. :s
Like most MCU movies, Avengers Endgame doesn't feel conclusive. It's composed of bunch of throwbacks and references, and one huge preparation for next sequels. Entertaining to spend your popcorn on & to motivate you to buy more merchandises, but no meaningful engagement.
The action sequences were cinematic and enjoyable, but it lacks depth. It lacks uncertainty that makes the struggle feels real. Despite the world (supposedly) is at its stake, there was no pressing moments that make the struggle immediate and can fail at any time. Despite facing huge army and "the inevitable" Thanos, the presence of several key characters downplay the threat at hand.
Endgame has quotable quotes that would make cool trailers and punchlines, but in spite of the characters talking to each other constantly, there were no heartfelt conversation. Dialogue feels like shoved because it's needed to keep the plot going. It's lacking the much needed engagement despite sacrifices here and there by the characters. Character arcs ended because it needs to end. It wasn't done gracefully.
Send off to primary characters (Steve Rogers and Tony Stark) were distracted by typical MCU jokes and speed-ups to give room for other characters. There's no time for heartfelt moments (like Winter Soldiers did) or tense (like Homecoming did).
The theme of time travel also brings question of continuity. Regardless of the whole talk about how the physics work in the beginning of the movie, those questions remain unresolved. E.g., if Rogers returned to the past to live with Peggy, it doesn't make sense for Peggy to feel relieved seeing Rogers again in Winter Soldier. It wouldn't make sense for Rogers to let his best friend Bucky Barnes to endure decades of torture by the HYDRA either. And what about the butterfly effects like Loki taking Tesseract and Rogers whispering Hail Hydra to Hydra?
With similar theme of time travel, another superhero movie can do a way better job: X-Men Days of Future Past. It has several characters but all were given fair opportunity to develop. Dialogues were emotional and the urgency felt real as we're shown the future and the past, back and forth.
On the other hand, Avengers Endgame's ensemble cast fails to bring key characters to focus on, making it lacks the emotional kick it needed to make the final funeral scene felt rewarding.
In the end Endgame is primarily an action comedy featuring people in fancy costumes and unbreakable will. It does its job well for that purpose. But that's it.
For a supposedly climactic end of a generation, it felt anticlimactic and hollow; unless maybe you've already traded your cashes for its merchandises.
Ordinary plot, decent action, and Liam Neeson has became a somewhat invincible superman instead of a believable experienced agent with tactical and martial prowess like he was before.
I need Wikipedia to guide me through this film...
The key takeaway of the film, to me, is its subtle offhand remark of American yuppie culture; the tasteful thickness of the way they jab (okay I'll stop) at how everyone is trying to be like everyone else - "trying to fit in," in Bateman's words - that everyone mistakes someone for another and someone like Patrick Bateman can get away with murder.
The whole film is about him needing to fit in but at the same time stand out.
The film toys with the idea of the murder scenes being an imagination that all happened in Bateman's head, but I say the line is only drawn when the things get more ridiculous. It's even earlier than the one they displayed in the third act - when the ATM shows the message to feed it a cat - but when Bateman started hanging out in Paul Allen's apartment. An investigation was going on: why would Bateman intentionally spread their fingerprints all around? Partly perhaps he did want to get caught - the desire to find out who he really is beneath the mundane sameness of corporate life - as the conversation with the lawyer suggested. Partly, however, is his active imagination playing bigger and bigger role as he descended into madness in this third act, as you can see that right after that scene we get the ATM scene and the car explosion scene where even Bateman himself couldn't believe it just happened.
The director did admit that the ending give viewers a wrong impression of what really happened in the course of the film - so I'm basing my comments on that. The surreal last act seems to be ambiguous, but when you consider the change of demeanor from the realtor in Paul Allen's apartment (and the all-white, recently painted rooms) and the lawyer Bateman talked to, that should be telling of the point of the third act. The eerie interaction, tense acting, and the music really made the last act as the best of the film.
Even when the film is intended as a commentary of 1980s hedonistic yuppie culture, I can still see it being relevant today. The consumerist, "getting into the fad" corporatist culture endures even into the culture of Silicon Valley workers. Patrick Bateman is a that obnoxious guy who really likes to hear himself talk - the kind of Twitter people and YouTube video essayists with celebrity syndrome - and the whole Pierce & Pierce young executives competing against each other to sound smart and look posh are just your typical tech workers taking a jab at politics. Their understanding of the events are just skin deep, but they want to look like the best among themselves. This is why the film is great even in 2022 and I think it will stay great at least in the next 10 years.
Started out OK, but in the second half the pace and plot kind of fell apart. Has an interesting premise - immortal humans connected to each other - but seems to have too many ideas they wanted to piece together without being able to pull it off.
The good first. The action sequences, when done right, were fine. Not spectacular, but nice. The action scene on the big pharma is quite well done in that regard (the one where they used one of them as a human shield). The first half is kind of nice in setting up the characters (disregarding the film's sense of place or time). However the film only goes that far.
The story (and its pacing) and the characters are not the strongest.
Copley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) seems intriguing at first, as a motivated man with a purpose, but near the end it almost seemed like the film abandoned his character development as it's beyond Ejiofor's paycheck (or, setting his appearance as a sequel). His scrapbook subplot and Andromache's (Charlize Theron) off-hand remark about "the world isn't getting better!" appears to be an attempt to be philosophical with the question like, "what is our purpose", "what can we do for the world", etc, but it ended up as superficial as the questions were partially given easy answer in the end (look at these documentations on the goods you've done for 'humanity'!), like something out of confused superhero comic book.
The relationship between characters has potential, but remain in the background. Booker has an interesting past (the struggle he had to experience regarding his son), but wasn't explored further, not even as his motivation in the climax. Joe and Nicky don't seem to have chemistry; they only look like a Netflix token LGBT characters. The dialogue while they're on the van feels particularly tacked on, even more awkward with the following responses from the cops/private security.
The worst part however has to be the music directing. It is horrible. Who the hell thought random selection of pop and R&B music for action sequences is a good idea? It made the scenes like a cheap teenaged Nickelodean drama.
It's watchable nonetheless, but not the one I'd recommend unless you have too much spare time or just want some random screening with your family.
It's brutal, has some fighting scenes, but it's in no way an action-packed movie.
Drama and character development makes the first half of the movie, with a rather slow plot progression to familiarize the audience with the characters. During this one hour there is also a glimpse of the workings of Korean underworld, however this portrayal seems to needlessly complicate the threads as they dismissed it midway for the "ultimate badguy".
The plot progresses in much better pace in the last one hour. But all the drama and character development never got built up to its full potential, even with our main character Cha Tae-sik and the girl So-mi. The actors are all great, including the gritty police officers, but their screen time doesn't amount to meaningful relationships among them. This is a missed opportunity especially between Tae-sik and So-mi. The often dramatic music doesn't help either.
The fight scenes are probably one of the better parts of the movie however most of the fights are done off-screen. Only after it reaches the second hour more action starts to show, but the shaky cam doesn't let much thrill to be experienced. The choreography is slick but the subpar camera works leaves me wanting for more.
Okay. So. Star Wars The Last Jedi. Late comment. This is sort of a mixed bag. It does feel like a film for kids/teens and fangirls (or their parents). A jumbled mess with dumb characters' decision.
But it is -way- better than Star Wars The Farce Awakens. I mean The Forced Awakens. The Force Awakens. Rian Johnson deserves more credits than Jar Jar Abrams.
First thing first: at the very least, TLJ dares to try something new where TFA couldn't. By "something new" I mean not the new MCU-flavored jokes and quips slipping everywhere but new formula and new themes.
The best thing from TLJ involves Luke a lot.
Among them is the idea of grey morality and Luke being "ordinary human" shrouded in myth. The take with Luke and Ben (Kylo Ren) relationship is nice. He is no all-powerful all-wise Jedi; he makes mistakes, he hesitates, he regrets. We didn't get enough build up to explain why Luke did what he did in the past, and Johnson resorted to the typical Kylo being "too powerful", but I guess it was decent.
The scenes where Luke dispels the myth of him being the legendary Jedi is also great. This might be relevant in this day and age of celebrity politicians when a divorce of one politician suddenly becomes everyone's concern.
And, of course, the most important thing in-universe is Luke's explanation about The Force being some sort of energy that surrounds us. Not innate power. This should correct the mistakes Jar Jar Abrams made in TFA and Gareth Edwards made in Rogue One.
There is also one good thing from Finn and Rose mischievous adventure. It feels like it attempts to bring up Prequel Trilogy serious tone concerning arms trade. Benicio del Toro also has one good moment when he explains about "good and evil" is not as simple as Finn might think. Though that two are the only good things from their adventure (we'll get back to this later).
Luke and Leia reunion is beautifully done. Great lighting, very timely moment (though things that lead into the moment is very questionable), and the hallmark score accompanying the scene is perfect. This is a great tribute to the Original Trilogy and to Carey Fisher.
One more thing: Vice Admiral Holdo last resort is quite a spectacle. The scene feels like I'm watching something from anime. The idea itself is brilliantly executed (for an action fantasy) and would make a good move if there would be another Star Wars game.
Now to the worst parts. It does feel like a jumbled mess with dumb characters' decision.
There is one scene where Leia comes back to life and fly. This is the weirdest thing to ever happen since Starkiller Base. No explanation at all (let's not pull Abrams-esque excuse "it's in the novels!" because you should not need secondary material to understand a film). Maybe it's a tribute to Carrie Fisher, or a plot point for other characters (Poe/Holdo) to shine, but even so there are better ways to do that. Maybe by not having Leia stay in bridge and affected by explosion.
And then there is Finn and Rose mischievous adventure. This might be the worst, really worst part. Messy subplot and dumb characters.
Their adventure to snatch a hacker to sneak into the Star Destroyer feels forced in the first place. Do they really have that much time to go to another planet while the Resistance fleet is being chased by First Order? The whole "we can't reach The Resistance because shields and distance" feels like a terrible excuse considering in previous materials a ship that huge would have enough firepower to destroy a shiled--and even if they didn't, they could've sent a group of bombers.
Finn and Rose adventure itself feels like they don't really know what they're supposed to do. They were tasked to snatch a hacker, but along the way they seemed to be comfortable to only take revenge to the rich arm traders and slavers that have hurt Rose in the past. Meanwhile The Resistance is in the brink of defeat. Where's the sense of urgency in their mission?
But the worst is in the climax of the film, when Rose thwarts Finn's suicidal plan in his heroic attempt to save The Resistance. The reason? Because killing people won't solve anything and love wins every time. Right--exactly after that cheesy line The Resistance defense got breached. Thanks Rose, I guess trying to imitate Oprah is the most strategical decision ever.
There seems like really no point in Finn and Rose subplot. Dumb characters and pointless quest. It only seems like a filler to meet the 2,5 hours quota. The best thing from their childish trip is Benicio del Toro's hacker character. When Finn was obsessed with the idea of "good" defeating "evil", del Toro's character explains things are not that simple in war. Just like with Luke, his brief yet impactful speech gives a nuance to the simplistic black-and-white tone Jar Jar Abrams developed in TFA.
However the writer appears to be so consistent in making almost everything in Finn & Rose quest a mess: as soon as First Order foiled their plan, it is revealed that del Toro's character is just an opportunist prick with a sweet tongue.
About the MCU jokes. Jokes in The Last Jedi is almost on par with The Phantom Menace. Even TPM feels tame.
TLJ does have very bad moments because of the MCU jokes, particularly in the very beginning of the film when Poe plays along with Hux in the middle of supposedly fricking surprise attack (do you really have that much time?), ruining the suspension of disbelief. In plenty opportunities MCU quips slip and I guess if you don't like Jar Jar in TPM, you wouldn't also like this too much jokes.
Fortunately though, aside from some scenes like with Poe-Hux, I don't think the jokes are -that- bad. It's not Avengers: Age of Ultron bad. It's irritating and pulls me away at times, but it doesn't ruin a supposedly well-developed character like Ultron.
Last: Rey and Kylo relationship. This is why I said this is a film for fangirls. The telepathy is a brilliant plot device to enable communication between two teenagers in opposing side, but do they -really- have to make them able to see each other?
The part when Kylo went nude and Rey's face turns red for seeing a naked guy--is this something from teen drama? There is also this scene when their hands touch each other and Luke barge in, sensing a forbidden love develops in our Romeo and Juliet.
The whole Rey-Kylo depiction is a true OTP bait. Well, I actually have a mixed feeling about it. This isn't exactly bad--it's okay for a teen drama and there's nothing contradicting the canon lore from this. But it does feel like some sort of Anakin-Padme 2.0.
I guess that's all.
It's not great, but it's not as bad as people made it to be. It's better than The Farce Awakens actually.
It's entertaining enough as long as you can glance over the dumb characters. It's still a mess though, so unless you really have nothing else to do it's better to watch something else.
One of the earlier film that started cyberpunk genre in Hollywood cinemas. Considering the time it is made, the panorama of cyberpunk L.A. is impressive - it doesn't look old/fake, and you can see the way it influences the depiction of "high tech, low life" setting in later years, with tall and dark skyscrapers looming over the meagers' life of its citizens, police almost omnipresence appearing instantly as if they had eyes everywhere in the city. In the same time it is also indeed a film of its age: with ceiling fans, analogue devices, and low-res screens contrasting with its futuristic setting. Still, it is understandable how the atmosphere alone can leave a remarkable footprint on modern cinema.
However, the movie suffers from a terrible pacing. It is inconsistently slow, with ups and downs in a very sharp turns. There are moments you wished the movie can explore more, especially on exploring the fantastic atmosphere and the existential crisis of the Replicants. Meanwhile, there are other moments that you wished could've been cut short. For being a neo-noir thriller the movie hits the spot in maintaining its dark, mysterious atmosphere, but misses a lot in keeping the thrill high.
The final confrontation especially leaves a lot to be desired - as Deckard (the main character) just ran mindlessly, or, borrowing Roy's (the antagonist) line, just "being irrational", until the climax of the film. Which, again, leaves a gaping hole. The movie presents us the existential problem, the supposedly main theme of the movie, right there at Roy's dialogue. But minutes later after the monumental speech, the credits already rolled.
It's still a cult classic though. The setting was great. Worthy to be watched at least once.
The lines and dialogues are so powerful, especially in the scenes when Agu (Abraham Attah) reflects on the brutality of the war as a kid. It is most disturbingly heart-breaking when he compares dead bodies under the sun to a scent of "burnt mango". The process of normalizing violence among the African child soldiers can't be captured more grimly without Idris Elba's impressive performance as the warlord The Commandant. The only little thing the movie seems to lack is on Agu's bonding with Striker, but other than that this movie delivers the life of African child soldier astonishingly.
Interesting movie. It plays out "racism" a bit differently, with Turner (Samuel Jackson) being the racist bigot and Mattson (Patrick Wilson) being the victim. The movie builds up the racial tension so patiently, cautiously. There are moments of thrill when you'll be worrying if the yelling and name-calling would turn violent--and turns out it's cleverly tuned down to a humane, civil negotiation. The conflict is played nicely like this sort of tension is highly probable to happen in our backyard.
That interesting build up, unfortunately, is resolved with a cartoon-ish, (un)expectedly boring in the ending, making all the tension feels useless and crashed all the way down.
This installment fell short for me, and I didn't particularly enjoy Fallout either, so it's not a matter of comparing campy action movies from the 1990s vs the stylish Nolan-esque action in the 2010s, as Jordy mentioned in another comment.
My biggest issue lies in the film feeling like a setup for Cruise's Ethan Hunt's sendoff in Part 2 and the rebuilding of the IMF team for future films. As a sendoff preparation, it tries hard to tie back to the first MIssion Impossible, bringing back Kittridge and connecting the main antagonist, Gabriel, and the righteous agent, Briggs, to Ethan's past. As a setup for sequels, it incorporates all the MCU-esque sequel-building elements: character pep talks, recruiting new team members, bonding moments, and hints of seemingly dead characters but not-that-dead. It only lacks the typical post-credits scene.
The film, unfortunately, tends to drag in certain sequences to accomplish these two points. Scenes with Luther and Benji at the airport, proclaiming their friendship and teamwork, or the aftermath scene with Ilsa as Grace is about to join the team, feel overly explicit in driving home the theme of being alone vs being with friends. The dialogues come across as unnaturally flowing, as if the characters were reciting lines to evoke emotions, humor, or impact. Dialogue, indeed, is not the film's strongest suit, especially when compared to Ghost Protocol.
The convoluted AI plot is another drawback. While I don't mind a yet-another-Skynet storyline or campy 90s action, the long musings on AI's world domination during the party scene with Vanessa Kirby's White Widow/Alana are cringe-worthy. The stakes seem unclear, and the repeated lines about fates being written and rewritten become tiresome, especially given the dialogue-heavy sequences. There are too many expositions on how the AI is threatening yet we barely see it does anything except that one sequence where it pretends to be Benji. The film's dialogue, once again, hinders the enjoyment of these scenes.
To its credit, Dead Reckoning Part 1 does have impressive stunts (Cruise's mountain jump and train sequences need not another applause) and enjoyable choreography. When the action delivers, it truly shines. The film also starts on a strong note, with the submarine opening instilling a sense of lurking danger of a potential mysterious enemy despite ended up falling into typical Skynet tropes. The portrayal of Gabriel almost reminds me of Chigurh from No Country for Old Men, if Gabriel was given better writing. Still, the action suffers from tonally inconsistent pacing and certain action sequences that drag, such as the car chase in Italy or the awkward fight with the charming la femme Pom Klementieff's Paris in the alleyway.
To conclude, if you have ample spare time, perhaps it's still worth giving the movie a shot. Although not the best MIssion Impossible in the recent years, the setups presented in the film leave me hopeful for a promising payoff in Part 2.
The difficulty in watching classics is to judge them fairly in the time they were released.
The positive side is, while I have limited knowledge of 1980s animation, it is not too hard to see how the Akira excels in the animation quality, even today, particularly in the very first sequences with Kaneda's Capsule gang driving though the city night lights, and the climax with Tetsuo's blowing up to a gigantic mass and the extradimensional inflection with the ESPs.
The excellent animation is used masterfully for conveying the atmospheric world-building: the sky-high lives of Neo Tokyo with a drab scummy lives of its citizens, brutal police forces, and economic insecurities painting the world bleak. Perhaps the strongest aspect of this film that I wished they could've took us a walk a little bit further like the politician Nezu took us in a stroll around the city. And like Blade Runner, watching through the film I recognised how the plot points and the themes raised in this film would later be used very familiarly in many other science-fiction films, thus setting up the cyberpunk genre in the years to come.
However, speaking of plot and story, I would say that perhaps writing is not the aspect this film shines on. Characters leave much to be desired. They feel like devices for the plot to move forward, even with our main characters Kaneda and Tetsuo, and even the McGuffin Akira.
While I appreciate the film doesn't blurt out everything and treat the audience as smart, some genuine questionable plot points left me wondering: why did the ESPs lure a certain character? What was really the reason of the rebellion? What's the point of the last sequences with politician Nezu and the opposition Ryu? The film seems to save some points for a future setups (that seem to be never realized) and the awkward fade to blacks between scenes and unexplained sequences made me feel like I'm missing out something and have to check Wikipedia - something that I realize later that I have to find out in the source material (manga).
As the credit rolled, my mind wander, not unlike Tetsuo's, the possibility of remake (even a live action one) that could amplify the excellence of this film and connect the half-painted tods. That being said, Akira is still a masterful cornerstone of science fiction/cyberpunk material that deserves at least a watch in a lifetime.
Another entry in MCU lineup of fanservices.
Script is written like the characters are actors talking to audience instead of something that would make sense to the characters in their world, e.g. what's with all Peters knowing about multiverses out of nowhere. Even the dialogues between the superheroes and villains all serve as nothing but nostalgia factor, assuming viewers immediately get the references. The brief dialogue between Electro and Garfield's Peter about "black Spider-Man" could've been a good commentary but it ends up as the kind of "yeah you know we're going to bring another cool Spidey in the future" plot device typical of MCU.
The whole Peter ganging up together is a lot of missed opportunity; they just instantly bonded out of nowhere. Saying they're like 'brothers' is overselling it.
Tenet is Christopher Nolan's attempt at utilizing similar timeslip mechanics as Primer, and should not be confusing at all to anyone who has ever watched that film. In fact, the moment that we are introduced to turnstile, it should be immediately clear how the film ties its loose ends, connecting the ending with the first minutes of the film.
The interesting take is how, and I think Nolan does much better job than the film I mentioned.
The point of the film, I think, is that there is no multiple realities. The future is already set in stone. "What happened's happened" means basically the world has been like that since the movie start. “Ignorance is the Tenet team’s ammunition” only because they don’t know how or what happens in the future, they do what they do to save the world. Basically everything in this film has already happened and no one is in control.
And I think that's the beauty, and the sad deterministic view of the film. "What about free will?" the Protagonist asks very early in the film. There is none; only fate.
So unlike what others have claimed, Tenet does have a plot, albeit a deterministic one. As a film, Tenet does not trouble itself by laying out vague scientific jargons or trying to explain the time mechanics to the audience. Nolan takes a straight point, focusing on the heist/mission like he did with Inception.
Some might say that the characters are soulless, unlike Inception. I think it might be the consequence of fast-moving scenes cut/edited with high efficiency. Especially in the first half of the film; at times I had to pause the film a few times to understand what's going on. But character's relationship leaves a better impression as we get to the ending. Although I have to admit that the villain's motivation was not at all convincing/interesting; they serve more like as a background to the whole mission.
I also see Tenet as Nolan's further experiments with sound design/ambient music, after what he did with Dunkirk: in certain scenes, like the inverted car chase scene, Nolan contrasts a seemingly linear/flat cinematography with shepard tonal music that makes the scene getting more intense and pressured only through repeating the pitch (see Vox's video/article on this subject).
Tenet might not be Nolan's masterpiece, but it's a very interesting experiments that does things well and really streamlined in the timeslip/time travel genre.
Clues have been laid out throughout the story. The plot knits seamlessly little by little. There is always moments of suspense through the use of silence and character shot. And what makes this movie powerful is terrific performances from Hugh Jackman and Jake Gylenhaal. The ending was bittersweet and left me with feeling of uneasiness. Moral of the story: never take action into your own hand.
Kyoto Inferno's strongest suite, like its predecessor, is in its choreography. It's able to invent moves that makes anime sword fight - with somersaults and slide running - looks convincing. Both in duel and large scale battle Kyoto Inferno succeed in imagining how swordsmen with super human abilities would cross their swords to each other. They even manage the tricky part with Himura vs Soujiro, a battle that relies heavily on speed. The film also has a very good casting choice, especially with Soujiro, which is a feat in itself if we're speaking of anime adaptation.
However, also just like its predecessor, the film is weak in its plot department. The pacing is a bit inconsistent and some scenes feel like rushed plot points. Same thing can be said with character development. There are so many characters introduced who lack enough time to grasp viewer's attention. Combine this two, and you get the Shinomori Aoshi subplot. His subplot sticks like a sore thumb especially so during the last 15 minutes of the film, with his arrival disturbing the whole tone.
It is unfortunate that, compared to the first film, Kyoto Inferno seems to opt with delving into the story and character's decision a little bit more. The story attempts to explore Himura's resolve of "not killing" - it plays big part in the course of the film - but because of its inconsistent pacing and rushed plot points, the dilemma of "what could've made Himura pushed the boundaries of killing" cannot be developed to its maximum potential.
Were the film focused more on the fights, where it excels the most, Kyoto Inferno could've easily been one of the most enjoyable action anime adaptation out there.
Rogue One was okay. Definitely better than The Force(d) Awakens. But it doesn't have the necessary kick it should have had. 2/3 of the film is just Jyn Erso wandering around. The real film starts at the last 1/3 part of the film.
Despite having the Rogue One team as the center of the film, there is no Rogue One team. There is only a bunch of ragtags with a noble mission.
Let's start with Jyn Erso. Jyn, the reluctant heroine, was initially uninterested in being involved with the whole Rebellion vs Empire conflict. But after a life-changing event involving her father, only there she started to be engaged. The problem is: this happened too early. Just a moment after her newfound spirit, there is another moment that should have kickstarted Jyn. Something involving her mentor, Saw Gerrera. But instead having that point as the driving force, the writer chose to uplift the mood too early. Leaving us with spirited Jyn, dispirited Jyn, and then spirited again.
Also, the trademark quip you see in the trailer, "I rebel," actually got cut off in the final release. So the rebellious Jyn presented in the trailer is actually not that rebellious in the film. This is one of the problem with character development in the film: we don't get to see how Jyn react with her surrounding. We don't get to know who she actually was, her relationship with her mentor. There is implied that something serious is going on between the two but we don't get to see why she should be emotionally attached to him (or her father, even).
The problem with this character development also happen for the long duration of the film: how the characters bond with each other. Yeah, in the long course of the adventures of Rogue One, we don't actually see them working as a team. There are only Jyn and Cassian and K-2SO, the Force fanboys duo Chirrut and Baze, and the unfortunate ex-Imperial pilot Bodhi Rook stuck in this ragtag group. Oh and a few of Cassian's men, who we hardly knew. Despite having them wandering around together for 85 minutes, the film doesn't give them enough screen time to work as a team. Instead we only see Cassian working with K-2SO as a part of rebellion, Jyn acting as reluctant heroine, Chirrut and Baze as remnants of the ancient Force order, and Bodhi who has no choice but to chauffeur them to their desired places. And a bunch of Cassian's men joining the bandwagon at later times.
So, unlike the solid team we see in Star Wars The Force Unleashed (the game), or maybe other Disney-published film Guardians of the Galaxy, we see here a dysfunctional team who just happen to band together. They are willing to die for a cause, but it's unclear how willing they are to protect each other's back. Yes - because in the course of the movie they only act for the friends they already know. Baze only for Chirrut (and vice-versa), Jyn for Cassain/K-2SO (and vice-versa), and poor guy Bodhi being a lackey because he has no one he knows. When anything goes bad in the team, we don't see them losing as a team - only as individuals.
Speaking of characters, the film also has some unnecessary drama and characters taking dumb decision. The film starts with a really unnecessary death which can be prevented. The same goes with Saw Gerrera. This potential character, derived from the older Expanded Universe saga, is not utilized in full effect. Despite portrayed as important, he remained in the background almost in the whole time, with no air of mystery at all. We hardly knew him.
Felicity Jones acting as Jyn Erso is a bit jarring. She is a better written character compared to Rei in Force(d) Awakens, but Jones don't seem to act her properly. In some sequences she seem to behave awkwardly, like being uncomfortable at the scene. Then just a moment later, she became high and mighty.
In universe, the film also has several weird take on the Star Wars canon. First is Chirrut's constant praying to the Force. No one prayed to the Force before. Force is not Jesus, you don't pray to Him. Lucas' inspiration of the Force was Eastern esoteric religion - it's some sort of energy that surrounds us. Having someone praying to the Force is a very monotheistic approach to the concept of religion.
Another weirdness is the jumping to the hyperspace plot device. Like in The Force(d) Awakens, jumping to hyperspace is utilized as a too convenient deus ex machina: it can be done while in atmosphere. In Star Wars canon (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) you can only jump while in the orbit. The lack of security in Imperial-occupied planets also look very jarring. How can rebel ships slip into the planets that easily?
Despite all that, the last 1/3 part of the film is exciting, albeit using some cliched plot device (romance, main goal being sidelined by petty challenges). The space battle is fine. X-Wing and Y-Wing are utilized properly as fighter and bomber (not otherwise). The tactic with Hammerhead-class cruiser is, while ridiculous, still more satisfying than the one-fighter-destroy-one-SSD-by-crashing in Eps IV. Also the cameo of characters like Tarkin is pleasing to EU fans. The only weird part is the directors and governor addressing Vader as "Lord"--didn't they see them as a peer in Eps IV, by calling him simply as "Darth"?
All in all, not bad, but not that good either. As for the weird tone in first 2/3 of the film, I suspect there is Disney's part in here. Them ordering reshoot to make it more "fun and light-hearted".
The movie has an interesting premise, but the execution didn't turn out so well. The difference between surrogate and real humans is clear-cut (technical limitation, I guess). The character appears out of nowhere, didn't have much time to be developed. And the plot... it's the typical one-big-villain-involved-in-all-things. Still a decent watch though.
