This film reminds me not to listen to some arthouse film critics on the news and especially not those smartass internet film "connoisuier" who abuse the phrase "human condition".
High Life is a slow-burn, and there's nothing wrong with slow burn. I enjoyed Blade Runner and The Irishman. It's just there's nothing really scifi here except the setting and the mechanically accurate black hole. The characters are not likeable, not even remotely relatable to the audience. No depths. Barring Pattinson's and Andre's characters, the film doesn't give the chance to portray them as human beings - only degenerate despicables.
Most of the screen time can be completely cut to 50% and you still barely got what the plot is about. I mean the color and cinematography looks good, in a way that sets the bleak tone of the film. But it's not supported by other elements such as music or sound design.
The more interesting part of the film is the relationship between Pattinson's character and the baby, but like most French auteur the film decides to spend most of its time to sex scenes.
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.
This movie is a pure nonsensical action from start to finish. Pure gold.
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.
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.
Very stylish action film, with the character and sequences mostly choreographed to the music. Killer beats, flashing character design, and a funky character background (Baby's past and how he got into it). There is not much character building in the movie, and the last 30 minutes that lead to the eventual climax only make little sense plot-wise and character-wise (especially with the way Baby seems to have been reluctant to kill since the start, but the unusual way the plot ended--despite the cliches that come along with it--kinda satisfying.
For an action flick this one gets the job done, props for the stylish presentation.
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.
I don't get it: why are other movies dissed when they rehash the plot, reuse the same elements all over again, imitate other movies; but when it's Star Wars, all critics from all around the world glorify it to the fullest?
When it was just Rey and Finn's tiny adventure, Force Awakens is all fun and games. It's interesting, it draws us to know more. But after they met the old casts (Han, Chewie, etc), Eps VII really just that: a rehash of Eps IV, VI, and IV with better visuals. It's not even being consistent with the original trilogy (not prequel!) Star Wars logic, e.g. hyperdrive being usable indoor, Han Solo being unfamiliar with his 30 years best-bud weapon, "the Force" being something you have inside you instead of the energy around you that you have to control, etc.
Not to mention the forced narrative like Rey seeing Han as a fatherly figure despite them only meeting about 15 minutes ago, Kylo Ren being someone with impeccable force power, and odd plot decision like Leia giving a hug to a certain someone instead the other one who has been with the guy for a very long time. The fact that the script has to mention that, for example, Rey sees Han as a fatherly figure shows how forced the narrative is--audience can't see that, so the script has to shove that to audience eyes!
I can continue on and on, but this is one of the worst blockbuster I've ever seen. Especially since it's Star Wars.
Great cinematography, terrific acting and moving story. It is very relatable to today's bigotry to the changes. Though the movie kinda depict Christians in bad terms (with them seem to be the most fundamentalist and destructive), it also shows that even the most "intellectual" ones, the pagans, are not sinless from the guilt of bigotry (shown early in the movie). Under the pretext of "absolute truth", whether it's god or science, anyone can be a bigot, similar to today's debate of the pious vs the godless.
Black Panther is MCU attempt at saying something important but it ended up as a very superficial product tapping into the zeitgeist of black empowerment only at skin deep. MCU movies seem to touch the feelings of a many kind of people regardless of age and culture, and that's why their products trying to tackle difficult subject like colonialism and racism, such as Black Panther, fail as a movie. They're close to saying something yet they have to appeal to audience as broad as possible that they ended up not saying anything at all.
In this film they wanted to take a jab at colonialism, racism and all but they also have to play it safe so it ends up with the black guy winning because of good heart but didn't say anything at all about how Western development aid has turned Africa for the worse. "Colonialism" only ends up as a catchy buzzword for the characters to shout at the white dudes. The antagonist seemed to want to do "the right thing" but ended up as a power hungry lord because of "bad heart". The problem of colonialism/structural racism is simplified into "we have to make peace with the rest of the world" like in the ending scene when T'Challa "open borders". Really, structural violence can be ended with a good heart? Very safe liberal take about colonialism. They only wear this black empowerment stuff in surface level only, perhaps due to their limited liberal understanding of violence or perhaps in fear of hurting the ego of some fragile white manchildren which they have to cater to. Compared to The Mission or especially The Expanse, Black Panther fails to say anything about colonialism.
Similarly, their portrayal of "good Africa" ends up with Wakanda having high tech, sleek white aesthetic just like in typical Western vision of tech, some cool kids tinkering with stuff so it appeals to startup geeks, and some pseudo-African tribal-esque motif that's familiar enough to be recognized by Africans but foreign enough to the rest of the world so that it doesn't convey the more indigenous parts of Africans, such as their kinship system (e.g. different familial structure, motifs). In the world of Wakanda, people just happen to be there, strolling, tribal but modern people doing their tribal but modern thing (like ritualistic battle to decide a leader). They're playing the classic orientalist trope people usually put on Japan: being "traditional" and "modern" at the same time, at the receiving ends of Western culture but still molding them into their own. There's nothing indigenous Africa in Wakanda - it's just how Western people imagine if they created Africa in their own image. The world-building is horrible. Compared to Altered Carbon, the world of Wakanda is the world of purely distilled sterile version of United States that just happen to be set somewhere not-in-the-USA with black folks doing some cool American but also tribal-ish stuff.
In short, MCU won't be able to be complex because of the exact reason many people like it. It has to appeal to audience as many as possible. It has to be "universal", not culturally specific, not having a certain strong message. They have to figure out the safest way of telling a story and keeping the childlike feeling alive.
Their only saving grace is some cool cinematic shots of Michael B. Jordan and Chadwick Boseman. Good performance also. But that's it.
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.
As a thriller movie, the combat was intense. You can't be so sure which one is going to take casualty. The terror feels real as militias strike through the embassy and, later, CIA compound.
However, with a lot of dialogues and characters having much screen time, the drama in this survival movie feels almost non-existent. The dialogue lacks any depth, the characterization left almost nothing to the viewers to empathize with. Of all possible ways, Michael Bay choose to emphasize the drama by sporadically showing the soldiers communicating with their families back in the USA. But the relationship between the soldiers themselves are hardly shown aside from random conversations, leaving the movie with no remarkable character that the viewers can relate when a few of them met their demise. As a film based on real life events, it's really such a shame: because this means actual people were actually murdered in combat. Compared with how Lone Survivor was directed, 13 Hours was a really terrible drama.
There also seems to be a political tension going on in the background, but the movie gives no explanation, making the viewers difficult to catch up.
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.
Basically the movie is about people being beaten up by Muay Thai.
So-so plot and decent cinematography. The story only accompanies the action and the shot does need more work in here and there, especially in action scenes. There seems to be unintentional comedy from the way the plot and cinematography is directed. However the choreography is excellent and Tony Jaa's performance is astounding. Though along the movie the only decent opponent is the boss' right hand man (others are merely cannon fodder).
Deals with plenty of worldbuiding on "the ape world after-Caesar", and I quite liked that Caesar is presented as this mythological figure whose legend is misused by the next generation. But it doesn't stand on a best-written story, at least not after the first trilogy, with the 3rd film already showing its weakness.
There's a whole new generation of apes and humans taking the spotlight here, and I feel like this setting could've been utilized better as it can be a fresh start to the world for new audience (the audience being as clueless as Noa or Mae here). But there's no "real" conflict... the film plants us the seed of doubt toward Mae and her supposedly ulterior motives that Proximus sometimes appear to be a reasonable voice, but there's no payoff to that build up, even when the film ends with Noa agreeing in some part with Proximus.
The film rehashes the question of "can apes live together side by side with humans", which makes sense given that these are new generation of apes and humans, but we've seen that in the 2nd film already, and I feel like this film just ends up being a filler to set the stage for the sequel.
Not that MCU is good, but this film feels like a weaker DCEU version of Thor: Dark World (with Orm siding with Arthur - they even throw a shade at Loki) and Black Panther (with Atlantis opening up to the world and Arthur preaching about kindness and technology to solve... climate change, lol).
The film has no stake at all. Throughout the film you'll see some supposed tense between the characters, but every instances of supposed betrayal or any semblance of conflict is a cop out or played out as a joke. People get hurt, they are burned or stabbed badly, but they recover minutes later. The emotional hook is supposed to be Arthur's failure to manage his kingdom but this never got developed further. Instead we see some council lecturing Arthur in one scene and Orm's motivational speech about believing in yourself in the next. The Thor-Loki-like reluctant brotherly dynamics of Arthur-Orm is mostly about a competition of delivering funnier banters.
The film is a jumble of one action scene to another, but even if you count this as an action film, the action sequences are super underdeveloped. Most action scenes literally happened off-screen, and while the camera moves swiftly to deliver some speed when there is an actual action, it lacks the punch and impact when our heroes and villains exchange blows. The penultimate showdown with Black Manta is super short, and the centuries-slumbering monster-king of the titular The Lost Kingdom is vanquished in one trident blow.
I like the visual and some world-building of Atlantis though. Flashy CGI, beautiful flowing hair. The scenes in the bar, the underworld, and daily lives of Atlantean makes me feel like it's an aquatic version of Star Wars galactic life. Much potential here, but I don't know if it's something that the directors will tap into further in the next films.
For a final send-off to DCEU before James Gunn's takeover, The Lost Kingdom delivers its job as a popcorn flick Christmas blockbuster albeit with too much forgettable substandard story and action sequences.
A slow-burn crime drama sprinkled with dark comedy up until the third act as they are really close to solving the murder cases. The first two-thirds are very characteristic of South Korean film drama with awkward humor paced between drama and thriller mystery, but it never drifted away from the cinematic piece in the third act. The sound design and minimalist score emphasizes dramatic moments; with Bong-Joon Ho giving the third act an intense jolt as everything gets connected and arrived at the powerful climax (the famous train track scene), and, ultimately, a chilling ending that revisits the opening scene with an lingering feeling of bleakness.
"Do you get up each morning too?"
Layer Cake is a stylish British crime drama with a keen eye for cinematography. Daniel Craig's performance as a savvy amateur crook already gets mentioned frequently, but I'd like to highlight Matthew Vaughn's slick directing, crafting some of the slickest transitions and interesting camera work depicting deaths and pivotal moments in the film. You can almost glimpse the blueprint of his future projects like First Class and Kingsmen.
The script might not break new grounds; it offers the expected crime film twists and turns, but enough to keep you glued to your seat and enjoying the ride--as long as you get your eyes fixated on the screen and not on your phone like most Netflix goers nowadays. The film veers into a Fargo-esque vibe as events spiral out of control as the characters straddling through the chaos. As with Fargo, there is no real focus on making them "interesting" and just a depiction of how they navigate through the haywire they got themselves into. In the end, everything is artfully resolved.
The concept is intriguing. The theme of local wisdom set in Saranjana, a mythical city beneath the waters of South Kalimantan, is captivating. Unfortunately, the execution is embarrassingly poor.
The film aims to blend horror, drama, and science fiction, but fails entirely. The storyline is incredibly flat—while this might work for a horror film, the execution here is so poor that the film lacks any grounding whatsoever.
The film starts without any clear direction, featuring a band concert somewhere, followed by a petty drama among the band members leading to the vocalist's disappearance. There's a hint of horror initially, but it abruptly intensifies when the vocalist seems possessed and wanders off to Saranjana (we find out after 15 mins that the film actually takes place in South Kalimantan). The band embarks on a quest before the film transitions into a horror segment as they try to find their way to Saranjana. Once the mythical city is revealed, a science fiction element is introduced, closing with a return to drama.
The horror is subpar, the drama fails to evoke any emotion, and the science fiction lacks imagination.
Let's discuss the horror first. The film markets itself as a "horror" film, but it merely throws various supernatural entities without any horror tension. Pocong appears, a supernatural baby emerges, the spirit of a dancer appears, but everything comes off as absurd. The scene with the pocong is particularly ridiculous. It seems the director hoped to induce horror through quantity—every appearance of a pocong involves a multitude (sometimes a dozen), yet there's no buildup whatsoever. The characters rely solely on screaming in fear without taking any meaningful action.
There's one absurd scene where the character floats down a river full of pocongs. Suddenly, one pocong emerges from the river (among a dozen others just watching from a distance), and the character just hysterically screams in fear, and the pocong does nothing but stare blankly. Suddenly, their boat starts moving again after they stop screaming. Another foolish scene shows a character trance-dancing due to possession, and another character suddenly becomes possessed as well when approaching. The solution for the character still in control? Get close to them and shake their body to bring them back to consciousness, even though a moment before they realized that being close might lead to possession. Strangely, only the main character avoids possession with no reason explained.
Now, onto the science fiction part. Saranjana, the unseen city with an advanced civilization. Our protagonists, after a bloody and sweaty struggle, finally steps into Saranjana (this isn't a spoiler as it's in the trailer, which is also a dumb decision). However, this mystical city turns out to be just like Dubai. The portrayal of Wakanda, which I still think lacks imagination, is miles better. Here in Saranjana the supposedly futuristic city consisting only of skyscrapers with Arabic writing (basically Dubai). The streets are paved. The cars are Toyota Avanza, the motorcycles are scoopy. It's genuinely sad and utterly lacking in imagination from the concept artist.
Whether it's a budget issue or a vision problem, I don't know. There are futuristic gadgets in the story, but they're reduced to simple smartwatches with 3D holograms to be easily comprehensible for the audience. The effects are also terrible. Despite the city supposedly having advanced surveillance, the surveillance cameras are Xiaomi brand (yes, the white ones). The police guarding the city don't use any vehicles to chase criminals; instead, they run barefoot. People wearing traditional Banjar clothing seem to be directly transplanted: in this supposedly super futuristic city, their traditional attire remains unchanged.
The irony is that there should be a contrast between the high-tech city and the low-tech traditional clothing. However, because the depiction of the city is incredibly low-tech and trashy, I don't feel anything. It's quite amusing.
Finally, the drama.
The director should have hired a screenwriter instead of writing the script themselves. The dialogues are incredibly cringeworthy. The main character has a talk-no-jutsu like Naruto that can change people's minds just by rambling and getting angry. Whoever was responsible for editing should be fired because every drama scene feels rushed. In one scene, a character is determined, and in the next scene, they suddenly cry and change their mind.
I heard that the budget for this film wasn't large. But they managed to fly the film crew to South Kalimantan and shoot on location? Instead of spending the money on shooting on location, it should have been used to hire a more skilled concept artist and an experienced screenwriter. No one cares if the film shot in a city forest in front of a housing complex or on the actual location, as long as it looks authentic. Authenticity is achieved through adept film production, not by jetting off to a set location.
The only positive thing about this film is the theme music. The Saranjana theme is mesmerizing, very ethnic. The acting is standard for Indonesian film standards. Everything else is truly... a headache to watch.
E for Effort though. Hopefully the director learned a lot from the process and someone (or the director in the future) will pick up this fascinating myth with a better project.
A gripping thriller with standout performances from its cast, particularly Butler, Grillo, and Huss. The film mostly maintains a grounded and realistic tone throughout, notably defying the overused Mexican standoff trope during action sequences by having characters take swift action.
Unfortunately, the film ends up as a typical action hero shootout during its climax. The atypical upbeat ending also feels out of place. Very bummer for an already good cop thriller.
Bandersnatch stands out as the most Twilight Zone-esque and perhaps the best episode of Black Mirror to date, thanks not only to its innovative and gimmicky presentation, but also its ultimate secret ending.
A slight nod to other comments: when following a straightforward path, Bandersnatch can feel somewhat bland and slightly uninteresting. Even though the various choices may lead to very meta and/or interesting schizophrenic endings, this isn't the main appeal of the episode.
The true gem of Bandersnatch lies in the culmination of all choices you make and the different endings or dead-ends you encounter. As Colin Ritman puts it, what matters is the choices that led you to a particular path, rather than the specific fate you experience in one lifetime.
Here's a hint: when faced with a dead-end, don't hit rewind and choose another option; instead, select from the options the episode provides. It remembers your choices and will open up alternative routes you can explore.
Only after going through those multiple dreaming sequences, RPG/visual novel playthroughs, and exhaustively exploring Bandersnatch's depth, do you truly appreciate its richness. Just like Stefan, who finally exhausts his options through the experiences of hallucinogens and brutal murders, you'll encounter a bittersweet moment when the episode reveals a secret ending that, to me, feels like the canon conclusion.
At the core of Stefan's obsession with "multiple choices" adventures is one pivotal moment when he wishes he could revert to be with his mom, accompanying her through her eventual demise, regardless of his prior knowledge about it. As "O Superman" by Laurie Anderson plays, the episode takes us back to the first sequence of the episode, and both Stefan and the audience finally find a sense of peace after the Jacob's Ladder-esque nightmare - asking if, after all, it is the lack of acceptance that burdens us when we grieves ourself into the deep hole of what ifs.
Two hours and half have past by the time the credits roll; Bandersnatch asked me if I want to give another go. I closed my eyes and put it to rest.
A welcome return to the exaggerated action swagger post-Fast V, Fast X: Part One delivers a thrilling over-the-top action flick.
The film shares a similar issue with Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part 1: it attempts thoroughly to set the stage for the grand finale in Part 2, connecting everything to past films and reuniting the entire cast, even if only briefly. This effort to showcase familial bonds between characters sometimes leads to overdrawn comedy and drama sequences. Several sequences, like the Roman vs Tej fistfight or Letty vs. Cipher brawl, feel like padding to extend the 2.5-hour runtime. And there are character deaths... but as the credits rolled I've accepted that it might not really mean anything. As that one obtuse now-Disney-franchise told us, "No one's ever really gone" in Fast.
Despite this, Fast X manages to maintain a relatively well-paced tone. The film is cognizant that dialogue is never its strong suit and it avoids getting bogged down in overtly serious drama with weak lines, as seen in F9. It also steers clear of relying heavily on exposition to create tension and drama, a trap Dead Reckoning Part 1 fell into. The film effectively brings back the best formula from previous Fast movies, featuring thrilling speed car sequences and gadgety/car gimmicks, while discarding elements that didn't quite work. Jason Momoa's portrayal of Dante is a refreshing departure from the usual tough guy typecast, and the tie-ins to previous Fast films work better here than in Dead Reckoning Part 1,
Although the all-star cast doesn't allow every character to shine (this is, after all, Dom's film), Fast X remains an enjoyable ride from start to finish. Looking forward to the Part 2.
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.
A drama-thriller superhero film, Chronicle is Brightburn if it was more competent and spent its time to develop the characters. The pace can be quite slow in the first half, but its slowness is crafted in such a way that you can't help but sympathize with the confusion, exhilaration, satisfaction, disappointment, and anger the group feels throughout the film - especially Andrew. It takes you to the time when high school was full of possibilities and, at the same time, full of disappointment.
The use of "found footage", despite the at times erratic angle, helps with connecting to the guys in the film, as if you're part of the group witnessing the event unfolds. I like that the film uses different cameras (surveillance camera, others' phones, etc) to convey scenes where Andrew's footage would not make sense.
When the climax eventually hits it feels quite painful as you've seen the group's ups and downs, and you'd find yourself believing under different circumstances they would've been something else. That being said, the final showdown lacks a little bit of oomph from the hectic and chaos it caused. Perhaps the only sequences where the found footage angle could use better work.
Not the greatest film, but still worth watching.
Not novel, we've seen this kind of film all the time - Memeto being one of the best - but still managed to provide an enjoyable, thrilling ride where you may second guess what happened.
"A king has no friends. Only followers, and foe."
This line encapsulates the essence of the film. A somber retelling of Henry V, loosely based on Shakespeare's play, The King is a slow-burn tale following a reluctant Henry V as he navigates the deceitful royal court to establish his rule.
It is a non-action serious drama, with no pretension to be historically accurate, that relies on cinematography, acting, and brass-heavy music to create a brooding atmosphere, establishing Henry's isolation as he stands atop the lonely peak of royalty, devoid of trust. The film's bleakness, gripping the audience throughout its two-hour runtime, reminds me of Robert Eggers' The Viking, although with much less arthouse touch and much less visceral intensity; serving a calmer ambiance reflective of the peace Henry longs for. As Henry softly implores his wife to speak only the truth in the film's ending, the climax deliver a decent twist, leaving us wondering if Henry is willingly plunging himself into another pit of deceit.
The performances by Chalamet (Henry), Sean Harris (William), Edgerton (Falstaff), and Pattinson (Dauphin of France) are outstanding, even if Pattinson's portrayal leans a bit too heavily into goofiness.
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.
Flashy visuals with some terrific work on the animation, dashed with a right amount of tasteful comedy, poking fun of previous Spider-Man iterations and common superhero tropes in general without dragging it down. The first half of the film has the story going well with coming-of-age drama and superhero team up; but the second half kind of resolved the conflict very quickly and just get done with it - including the film version of "who murdered the Uncle Ben" - which made the pace kinda abrupt and downplayed the tension, but still somehow worked. It's not the best story out there but still manages to give short bursts of emotional touch in-between the visuals and the multiverse concept. Certainly it did much better than Far Away From Home.
Film with interesting premise and potentially interesting world-building, hampered down by sloggish pace, run-of-the-mill dialogue, and less-than-stellar writing. The whole film feels like a jumble of events made possible because the plot wills it, very apparent in every scenes when the people pursuing the duo somehow tracked their location and somehow they escaped for the Xth number of time.
F9 speeds onto the screen with a mix of excitement and disappointment. While I wouldn't label it as the worst installment in the franchise, it certainly lacks the punch and adrenaline rush, especially after the high note that Fast 7 played.
The film's action sequences feel disjointed, failing to jolt the anticipated adrenaline rush. The opening sequences attempted to burst into high-octane moments with explosions and spectacle, but they never really delivered the gripping excitement expected. The subsequent action scenes veer into run-of-the-mill territory, especially in the process of the Avengers-like assembling of characters with the return of Mia and Han. Many action sequences feel arbitrary, lacking narrative purpose.
However, to the film credits, the action gains momentum in its second half after the team assembled. The Fast franchise always has gimmicks and here's where the film's gimmick comes into play - electromagnetic tricks. The creative use of this concept in the final battle injects some much-needed freshness in an otherwise stale action sequences.
What makes F9 a very dull Fast film is its attempt at adopting a darker tone, which falters heavily. The pivotal brotherly feud between Dom and Jakob lacks the necessary kick for the audience to care enough about the newly introduced character. The underdeveloped relationship fails to justify the character introspection and moments of fragility. The actors struggle to convey the conflict, hindered by lackluster scripts and dialogue.
This darker tone is contrasted to the usual Fast humor and banter which fail to maintain a nice blend of tonal consistency. There is an appreciable attempt to satirize the implausibility of the characters' invincibility, a self-awareness that permeates the film. However, it feels too on-the-nose as the script repeats the point on and on.
In the end, F9 doesn't reach the heights of its predecessors, lacking in both thrilling action and bogged down by its attempt to be serious and darker. While it has its moments, it falls short of delivering the exhilarating experience fans have come to expect from the Fast & Furious franchise. If you wanted to watch F9, I suggest to skip right onto the second half. You won't miss anything.
