Ren

I honestly don't understand all the hype and high scores and positive reviews on this movie.

To start off, the 20yo "high school students" are nowhere near believable, but at the same time they're such stereotypes-on-legs that one feels the urge to just punch them in the face. Not only their personalities, but their every single interaction as well is so sterotypical and predictable that they're literally painful to watch.

Once they get into the game, it doesn't get any better. The fact that they're sucked into a game only serves to negate any and all sense of danger they may face during the "adventure": with three lives, you just know that whatever happens to them will have no consequence whatsoever - if anything, they manage to utilise "death" as a game mechanic to help them along the way; heck even their weaknesses become strengths, if not just butts of jokes. Their transformation only goes the most predictable way too: turning into their own "inverse" versions, with one or two character traits preserved to make everything else about them a joke. The world itself is poorly utilised as well: the source of the main dangers isn't nature but bandits on motorcycles, with some bad CGI animals only occasionally getting in their way. Even the story is non-existent, with a huge timeskip after a short intro, because gods forbid they actually continue where it was left off, or just bring it to present days right from the start.

The actors at least try to make an effort to do something with their characters, but quite frankly the ensemble of a muscle-brained G.I. Joe, a middle-aged unkempt Indiana Jones, a black valet, and Lara Croft has too little originality to it (ie. none) for those efforts to make much of a difference. Not to even mention the pilot, who couldn't be more generic if he was actually cut out of cardboard. But hey, at least Jack Black gets to play a teenage girl.

I'm not sure who felt that making this movie was needed. I'm not sure who thinks walking clichés and d××k jokes constitute a "fun family movie". Take away the title, and there is quite literally nothing to see here that stands out from any similar "lower tier" flick - none of which ever gets this ridiculously overrated.

It feels like the Batman universe got its own Watchmen remix, with Robert "Edward Cullen" Pattinson's emo boy Bruce Wayne in the spotlight, and I have so many issues.

First, I really wish the universe could get its own stories already, instead of remixing, for the umpteenth time, the characters' backgrounds, origins, roles, and by and large their looks as well. It's impossible to keep track of, and it's tiresome to re-learn every time a new movie comes along. As if the universe didn't have more than enough characters (some very colourful ones at that) to use.

Second, I'm not sure Batman needed a Watchmen remix, to be honest. The setup just doesn't work, especially when Batman doesn't even has his own companions (except for on-again-off-again Selina Kyle, ofc), and it's just the sole hero in a single city against a bunch of loonies, deep diving into his own past yet again. The length kinda fits (minus the ultimate cut), everything else though...

Third, I'm sorry but Robert Pattinson is just a weird choice. I didn't really get just how old Bruce is supposed to be here from the movie itself; and his characterisation sure doesn't help either, looking (and acting) like a bad stereotype of the emo teen - the rare one or two times when he isn't, he comes off an old man. And as Batman... this "slowmo" approach kills it. As if every step he takes is a struggle, and yet we're supposed to believe he's capable of all the stunts and fighting? There's no immersion.

Fourth, the ... tech, I guess? I'm so confused as to where we're supposed to be: in some parts, it looks like there's all the high tech computer stuff - and then in other parts it's like everything's almost analogue, not even digital. The range is really jarring here and only serves to further erode immersion. Especially the Riddler's little videos and some of his other stuff (hell, even his look) felt like they came from some 90s VHS movie. Absolutely bizarre.

Fifth, the rating indeed. I said it's a Watchmen remix with Edward Cullen - this is why. I'm sure I wasn't the only one to immediately be reminded of Rorschach's opening monologue: it feels like they tried very hard to imitate that... except it got utterly destroyed by sounding exactly like some inane rambling from Twilight. And, well, it is indeed that guy, from that movie, as it later turns out: in more ways than one. But that's not the only crime committed in keeping the rating this low. There's corruption, there's an outright den with all the bad guys, there's regular gangsters, there's this absolute mastermind of a psycho doing what he does, and... we barely get to see any of it, save for some explosions featuring a lot of fire because that's easy to make big and can conveniently cover up everything. Yet more immersion ruined.

To reiterate: I really wish Hollywood stopped trying to reboot and remix Batman (yet again, after, what? three movies in the previous attempt?), there's more than enough material to establish a foundation and work from there. But to add to it: I really wish Hollywood stopped trying to reimagine these universes in more "realistic" ways, too. There's no need for everything to be so gritty, for everything to have its root in reality, for everything to be politically correct and oh-so-woke. Especially when it comes to superhero flicks: these are meant to entertain, to let the viewer switch their brain off for a few hours and just enjoy a movie. If I wanted a documentary or some real life nonfiction drama, there's plenty of those to choose from.

I am not exactly sure what I just watched. I would under no circumstances consider this as a western, that's for sure. And drama... I dunno, doesn't that require a story? Or some character conflicts at least? Or did that genre becmoe the go-to label for everything that can't be categorised as anything else?
I have no idea what I just watched. There is no story here, the locations could be presented in any random order, and it wouldn't make any difference. There's no character portrayal either, really, we never really learn much (if anything) about anyone - consequently, there's no conflict, no drama, and no development either. There's no social commentary either, and it's also absolutely devoid of anything remotely political. A few shots here and there that I imagine look real nice in 4k HDR - but then if one wants pretty nature shots, they could just watch NatGeo or Discovery or some such. Some nice musical inserts - but then you can just go listen to any work of the featured composer anywhere, any time. It's like a hundred minute long portrait of some random generic people you most probably don't know and wouldn't care about anyway. And for the record: I don't mind movies in which nothing happens, but then show me something else instead. Nomadland doesn't.

How this movie ended up winning Best Actress, Direction, AND Picture - with all the other nominees in those categories - I'm sorry, but it does not compute. It's too much even if we chalk it up to the year having been long and slow due to the pandemic.

Time sure flies by, we all grew up and so did Hocus Pocus. For all the good and bad it means, it really is updated to "modern standards". The sisters as kids were absolutely phenomenal, two thumbs up for the actors and whoever managed to find them, as perfect a fit as possible, I imagine. The "new trio" though, the movie really fails to do them justice. Then again, considering what that entails these days, perhaps it's not this particular movie's fault - as characters, they're also as cookie cutter as they can be, we've seen them too many times and in these days we see them everywhere. I can't even recall their names and somehow that fact doesn't even bother me so much. In contrast the sisters do bring character, they are still as colourful as they were, perhaps a touch different, but none the worse for wear - which is quite the achievement three decades later. For those of us who saw the first movie as kids, everything they bring (back from the dead) just works, just as well.

The one fault, perhaps, is that this sequel breaks from the original in that it doesn't really feel like a Halloween movie. Maybe intentional, especially considering the very early release, but at the same time it feels a bit of a loss, all things considered. Oh, and Mary's mouth seems to be mirrored, compared to the first movie, for some reason. Having said all that, as a whole the movie manages to bring some of that oldschool Disney charm, which is actually great - if a little predictable at this point (together with that twist at the end). A throughly enjoyable sequel if you liked the original, I might even venture to say it's a graceful one.

Really not sure what to make of this movie, as I was having a hard time trying to decide what it wanted to be. Very obvious parts conjured images of 50s/70s television in my mind. Other, just as obvious parts felt like they wanted to make a Western, some of it "oldschool", some the more "modern" type. Some of it, I'm sure, has some "deep, underlying" meaning, issues or lectures it wants to weave into its story to educate the audience. There's a very basic down-on-their-luck people wanna get rich fast theme thrown in it for good measure. But then it also wants to be science fiction, and horror/thriller on top of that.

Far as I'm concerned, it fails in all those aspects. There's never enough time for any of that to actually unfold and flourish - and by the way time? It keeps jumping back and forth in that, too, as if constantly switching genres wasn't bad enough. There isn't enough blood/gore here to pass for horror. There isn't enough scares of any kind to keep the adrenaline up. And idk about others, but I definitely found no trace of sci-fi either: the big spoopy alien ship that's nothing but clouds for so long turns out to be a damn weather balloon (no really if you didn't get that impression, idk what to tell ya). Which is ultimately supposed to be some kind of space whale animal, except it's made of some sort of fabric? That gets popped with an actual balloon. None of it's ever expanded on or explained at any level, in any way whatsoever. Nor does any of the threads get tied up, because suddenly it's just - the end. GTFO.

It has some shots that no doubt looked great in IMAX - but outside of that they fail to be anything special. Hell, in this day and age, I'm not even sure it was that special in IMAX. And apart from that... yeah, nope. In just over two hours, I feel like I was kinda duped, as if I'd just watched a Shyamalan movie. I'd like my time back, please.

Here's another one for the woke crowd. A non-white character has to be played by a non-white person, otherwise it's simply not right. A non-straight character has to be played by a non-straight person, otherwise it's just all wrong. Hell, a black or Indian character in a cartoon just has to be voiced by a black or Indian person, otherwise the world comes to an end! You can even change the sex of a character, for no apparent reason, it would seem. But a canonically 15yo character can, and indeed for all intents and purposes, has to be played by a 26yo guy, because that's okay.

The cinematography and the soundtrack are great. The pacing makes it drag on, I felt it was overly long at two and a half hours; at around the one hour mark I actually remarked how we were still basically playing the tutorial. The story got a little murky and muddled at times. Zendaya's all of maybe 15 minutes of screentime didn't really justify the separate character hypes (although I guess her being the wet dream of teenage boys might just be a legit interpretation of those scenes, lol). Not a bad movie, but it has its own share of issues to be sure.

This is a tough one. Obviously, the subject itself is a heavy and important, sadly still very relevant, in many ways timeless. And the victims taking their fate into their own hands is always a great display of strength. Those are a given.

Having said that, I don't think as a movie it works. It starts very in medias res, indeed the very first sentence is about how the story ends before a child is born. It never really establishes a setting in any way, and when it does, it's still woefully inadequate. Perhaps it's a way to underline the timelessness of the subject, but I found it's more distracting than clever. We never know who these women are. We never know where they are. Indeed, we wait quite a bit before we even learn when they are - and when we do, it throws us for another loop, rewriting what we've probably already accepted as a setting in our mind. It never shows anything of the act, indeed the perpetrators are absent almost throughout the entire time (and when they aren't, things are still offscreen). It never tells us that it's a story based on true events, which would at least somewhat put our brains on standby, how it's told is not as important as what is being told. But then, even if it did, those real events having happened in an ultraconservative Mennonite colony? In Bolivia? For most of us, it's even further detachment still. As such, perhaps instead of all the omissions in an attempt to strip away most of the setting, just a direct dramatisation of those actual events would have worked better: just tell the story of what happened then and there, placing everything in its proper setting, instead of letting the audience try to piece those (non-existent) details together. And for all that, it ends up feeling rather long, too, that whole "going around in circles" impression is there: despite the supposed urgency to make a decision, they get bogged down on the way quite a lot.

I don't know. I feel like I would love to see a stage play version of this. Women talking. Just that. Nothing else. No flashbacks, no cuts to external scenes, no smart/tricky cinematography and digital filters. Just the women in a sparse hayloft set, discussing the events and what to do next. I feel like that would actually be phenomenal - that part, the acting itself, is pretty great here as well, after all, credit where it's due. As a movie, though, with all the artistic changes and probably directorial decisions... it's unfortunate. As significant and heavy as the larger general subject matter is, I don't think this movie does it any justice.

On the surface? It features both Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo - as a fan of the originals, that's awesome to see. And in one of the main roles, there's Christina Applegate - having practically grown up on Married With Children, I could not say no to this. Even Michael Peña makes an appearance, another actor I really like.
But then the movie actually starts, and... Something's definitely missing. The humour feels rather forced for the most part, and the chemistry isn't there that much either. Not only that, but so many elements that are just way too crude and explicit for a "family movie" - not that it's actually meant to be one of course, but still... I mean, the originals had a few risque moments too, however I don't think the four together had as much explicit material as this one. (And though Debbie Do-Anything is perfect to be considered Kelly's college persona, if she'd ever gone to college, it's just a little too much here.)
Overall it drags on for what feels like too long, because it just lacks the charm and wit. There are a few laughs to be had, but they're too few to make up for the shortcomings.