Denis Villeneuve is the man!
There’s only one word that came into my mind after watching it: finally.
Finally, a blockbuster that isn’t afraid to be primarily driven by drama and tension, and doesn’t undercut its own tone by throwing in a joke every 30 seconds.
Finally, a blockbuster that puts actual effort in its cinematography, and doesn’t have a bland or calculated colour palette.
Finally, a blockbuster with a story that has actual substance and themes, and doesn’t rely on intertextual references or nostalgia to create a fake sheen of depth.
Finally, a blockbuster that doesn’t pander to China by having big, loud and overblown action sequences, but relies on practical and grounded spectacle instead (it has big sand worms, you really don’t need to throw anything at the screen besides that).
Finally, a blockbuster that actually feels big, because it isn’t primarily shot in close ups, or on a sound stage.
And of course: finally, a blockbuster that isn’t a fucking prequel, sequel, or connected to an already established IP somehow.
(Yeah, I know Tenet did those things as well, but I couldn’t get into that because the characters were so flat and uninteresting).
This just checks all the boxes. An engaging story with subtext, very well set up characters, great acting (like James Gunn, Villeneuve's great at accentuating the strengths of limited actors like Dave Bautista and Jason Momoa), spectecular visuals and art design (desaturated but not in an ugly washed out way), pacing (slow but it never drags), directing, one of Hans Zimmer’s best scores: it’s all here.
I only have one real criticism: there’s too much exposition, especially in the first half.
It can occasionally hold your hand by referencing things that have already been established previously, and some scenes of characters explaining stuff to each other could’ve been conveyed more visually.
Other than that, it’s easily one of the best films of the year.
I’ve seen some people critiquing it for being incomplete, which is true, but this isn’t just a set up for a future film.
It feels like a whole meal, there are pay offs in this, and the characters progress (even if, yes, their arcs are still incomplete).
8.5/10
A potentially great film being held hostage by its PG-13 rating and its messy, all over the places screenwriting.
By PG-13 I don't simply mean its visuals/goriness, but most importantly its dialogues, themes, and storytelling it tries to raise. Let me explain.
First, the dialogues.
The film opens with murder and Batman narrating the city's anxious mood. We get a glimpse of noir in this scene, but it soon falls flat due to a very uninteresting, plain, forgettable choice of words Batman used in his narration. Mind you, this is not a jab at Pattinson - Pattinson delivered it nicely. But there is no emotion in his line of words - there is no adjectives, there is no strong feelings about how he regards the city full of its criminals.
Here's a line from the opening scene. "Two years of night has turned me to a nocturnal animal. I must choose my targets carefully. It's a big city. I can't be everywhere. But they don't know where I am. When that light hits the sky, it's not just a call. It's a warning to them. Fear... is a tool. They think I am hiding in the shadows. Watching. Waiting to strike. I am the shadows." Okay? Cool. But sounds like something from a cartoon. What does that tell us about you, Batman?
Compare this to a similar scene uttered by Rorschach in Watchmen. "The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood. And when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. All those liberals and intellectuals, smooth talkers... Beneath me, this awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children, and the night reeks of fornication and bad consciences." You can say that Rorschach is extremely edgy (he is), but from that line alone we can tell his hatred towards the city, and even more so: his perspective, his philosophy that guides him to conduct his life and do what he does.
Rorschach's choice of words is sometimes verbose, but he is always expletive and at times graphic, making it clear to the audience what kind of person he is. Batman in this film does not. His words are always very safe, very carefully chosen, which strikes as an odd contrast to Pattinson's tortured portrayal of Batman as someone with a seemingly pent up anger. His choice of words is very PG-13 so that the kids can understand what Batman is trying to convey.
And this is not only in the opening scene. Throughout the film, the dialogues are written very plainly forgettable. It almost feels like the characters are having those conversations just to move the plot forward. Like that one encounter between Batman and Catwoman/Selina when she broke into the house to steal the passport or when Selina asked to finish off the "rat". They flow very oddly unnatural, as if those conversations are written to make them "trailer-able" (and the scenes indeed do appear on the trailer).
Almost in all crucial plot points the writers feel the need to have the characters to describe what has happened, or to explictly say what they are feeling - like almost every Gordon's scene in crime scene, or Selina's scene when she's speaking to Batman. It feels like the writers feel that the actors' expression just can't cut it and the audience has to be spoonfed with dialogues; almost like they're writing for kids.
Second, the storytelling.
Despite being a film about vengeance-fueled Batman (I actually like that cool "I'm vengeance" line) we don't get to see him actually being in full "vengeance" mode. Still in the opening we see Batman punching some thugs around. That looks a little bit painful but then the thugs seem to be fit enough to run away and Batman let them be. Then in the middle of the film we see Batman does something similar to mafias. Same, he just knocked them down but there's nothing really overboard with that. Then eventually in the car chase scene with the Penguin, Batman seem to be on "full rage mode", but over... what? He was just talking to Penguin a moment ago. The car chase scene itself is a bit pointless if not only to show off the Batmobile. And Batman did nothing to the Penguin after, just a normal questioning, not even harsher than Bale's Batman did to Heath's Joker in The Dark Knight - not in "'batshit insane' cop" mode as Penguin put it.
Batman's actions look very much apprehensive and controlled. Nothing too outrageous. Again, at odds with Pattinson's portrayal that seem to be full of anger; he's supposed to be really angry but somehow he still does not let his anger take the best of him. The only one time he went a bit overboard that shocked other characters is when he kept punching a villain near the end of the film. But even then it's not because his anger; it's because he injected some kind of drug (I guess some adrenaline shot). A very safe way to drop a parent-friendly message that "drug is bad, it can change you" in a PG-13 film.
And all that supposed anger... we don't get to see why he is angry and where his anger is directed at. Compare this to Arthur Fleck in Joker where it is clear as sky why Arthur would behave the way the does in the film. I mean we know his parents' death troubled him, but it's barely even discussed, not even in brief moments with Alfred (except in one that supposedly "shocking" moment). So... where's your vengeance, Mr. Vengeance? And what the hell are you vengeancing on?
Speaking of "shocking" moment... this is about the supposed Wayne family's involvement in the city's criminal affairs that has been teased early in the film. Its revelation was very anticlimactic: the supposed motive and the way it ended up the way it is, all very childish. If the film wanted the Wayne to be a "bad person", there's a lot of bads that a billionaire can do: tax evasion, blood diamond, funding illegal arms trade, fending off unions, hell, they can even do it the way the Waynes in Joker did it: hints of sexual abuses. But no, it has to be some bloody murder again, and all for a very trivial reason of "publicity". As if the film has to make it clear to the kids: "hey this guy's bad because he killed someone!" Which COULD work if the film puts makes taking someone's life has a very serious consequence. But it just pales to the serial killing The Riddler has done.
Even more anticlimactic considering how Bruce Wayne attempted to find a resolve in this matter only takes less than a 5 minute scene! It all involves only a bit of dialogues which boils down to how Thomas Wayne has a good reason to do so. Bruce somehow is convinced with that and has a change of heart instantly, making him looks very gullible.
And of course the ending is very weak and disappointing. First, Riddler's final show directly contradicts his initial goal to expose and destroy the corrupt elites. What he did instead is making the lives of the poor more difficult, very oxymoron for someone supposed to be as smart as him.
Second, the way Batman just ended up being "vengeance brings nothing and I should save people more than hurting people" does not get enough development to have him to say that in the end. Again - where's your vengeance? And how did you come to such character development if nothing is being developed on? And let's not get to how it's a very safe take against crime and corruption that closely resembles Disney's moralistic pandering in Marvel Cinematic Universe film.
Last, the visuals.
I'm not strictly speaking about gore, though that also factors in the discussion. The film sets this up as a film about hunting down a serial killer. But the film barely shows how cruel The Riddler can be to his victims. Again, back to the opening scene: we get it, Riddler killed the guy, but it does not look painful at all as it looks Riddler just knocked him twice. The sound design is very lacking that it does not seem what The Riddler done was conducted very painfully. Riddler then threw away his murder weapon, but we barely see blood. Yet when Gordon arrived to the crime scene, he described the victim as being struck multiple times with blood all over. What?
Similarly, when Riddler forced another victim to wear a bomb in his neck. The situation got pretty tense, but when the bomb eventually blow off, we just got some very small explosion like a small barrel just exploded, not a human being! I mean I'm not saying we need a gory explosion with head chopped off like in The Boys, but it does not look like what would happen if someone's head got blown off. Similarly when another character got almost blown off by a bomb - there's no burnt scar at all.
Why the hell are they setting up those possibly gory deaths and scars if they're not going to show how severe and painful these are? At least not the result - we don't need to see blood splattered everywhere - just how painful the process is. Sound design and acting of the actors (incl. twitching, for example) would've helped a lot even we don't see the gore, like what James Franco did in The 127 Hours or Hugh Jackman in Logan. In this film there's almost no tense at all resulting from those.
I'm not saying this film is terrible.
The acting, given the limited script they had, is excellent. Pattinson did his best, so did Paul Dano (always likes him as a villain), Zoe Kravitz, and the rest. Cinematography is fantastic; the lighting, angle, everything here is very great that makes a couple of very good trailers - perhaps one could even say that the whole film trades off coherency for making the scenes "trailer-able". The music is iconic, although with an almost decent music directing. And I guess this detective Batman is a fresh breath of air.
But all that does not make the movie good as in the end it's still all over the places and very PG-13.
Especially not with the 3 hours runtime where many scenes feel like a The Walking Dead filler episode.
If you're expecting a Batman film with similar gritty, tone to The Dark Knight trilogy or Joker, this film is not for you. But if you only want a live-action cartoon like pre-Nolan Batmans or The Long Halloween detective-style film, well, I guess you can be satisfied with this one.
If this film is a cake, then it’s got the best possible frosting you could wish for. The cake itself, however, isn’t great.
I’ve always had a strange relationship with these films. I don’t really care for the Raimi films (I think they’re overly cheesy, poorly acted and dated, though don’t expect anyone from around my age to admit that), the Webb films are fine (really like the first one, second one’s a mess) and I’ve really liked the 2 recent ones (not as much as Into the Spiderverse, but still good in their own right).
Compared to the previous 2, this one pretty much ditches the John Hughes aesthetic as it goes along, and it goes into full on, operatic superhero mode.
Unfortunately, it is another one of those project that puts nostalgia and fan pandering over story and character, the kind of blockbuster we’re seeing over and over again in a post Force Awakens world.
This story is completely hacked together, consisting of so many contrivances, conveniences and established characters acting out of character that it becomes a bit of a shitshow ( Doctor Strange, a genius, is being tricked by teenagers; Peter not knowing about the consequences of the spell is a very forced way to set the plot in motion; Ned being able to open portals is quite ridiculous when the Doctor Strange movie made a point about how hard that is to learn; why is Venom in the universe given how they set up the rules of the multiverse, and the list goes on ). The problem is that they needed to take that bullet in order to make the film they wanted to make here (or rather, the film fans wanted to see), but that doesn’t make it the right choice by any means, because it leads to a nonsensical film with a rushed pace.
Look, you can nitpick this film to death ( why would a university publicly admit that MJ and Ned are rejected because of their connection to Peter? ), but that’s not even my point. It’s heightened and not meant to be taken that seriously, I get that, but you at least need some form of internal logic, you cannot just do these unearned things because the plot demands it.
It’s not all bad though, Holland’s Spider-man still has a very good arc with some great emotional beats in it, and they make some very bold choices towards the end that I hope they stick with. It’s very similar to the first Fantastic Beasts, so I hope they don’t pull a Crimes of Grindelwald by retconning everything .
The acting is great, Holland and Zendaya give their best and most mature performances yet, and the villains are all good. I really like that they toned Dafoe down a little bit.
It looks fine. It has some of the best cinematography out of the trilogy, but some of the action looks very animated (again, stop touching up the suit, just let it wrinkle ffs) and unfinished, which is probably because this thing was rushed out, as we know.
For instance, there are some really wonky shots in the scene where Spider-Man fights Doctor Strange, the close-ups with Benedict Cumberbatch look like a weather forecast on television.
The references to the previous incarnations are a bit of a mixed bag. I like that they progressed some stuff and did interesting things with the things they referenced ( for example, you really feel like time has passed with Tobey and Andrew, they’re not giving a copy of their original performances, which is also a great excuse to tone down the awkwardness and lack of personality in Tobey’s version. Also, the banter between them is very nice, of course ), but most of it plays like a pandering greatest hits compilation. I don't need Dafoe to say you know, I'm something of a scientist myself again, it is nothing but a cheap attempt to trigger my nostalgia button.
Finally, it also has some of the worst tonal balance and comedy out of the trilogy, especially with some of the lines that are given to Benedict Cumberbatch.
5/10
In summary/TLDR: great idea for Sony’s bank account, but the seeds for this needed to be planted much earlier in order to make it a good film.
The combination of extreme realism and violent digital cinematography makes this an otherworldly unsettling experience unlike anything else. I am amazed and disturbed.
This is a fascinating watch, it’s such a great insight into filmmaking.
I’d advise anyone to watch this and the theatrical cut back to back, you’ll learn so much about the process, rearranging scenes, editing, etc.
Pros:
- Compared to BvS: the script is much more structured, coherent, and simple. Also, this film doesn’t try to have any political depth or social commentary, which is a plus because that requires a filmmaker with subtlety, and Snyder is no such filmmaker. Finally, it doesn’t make any major mistakes like the Martha scene or Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.
- Compared to the theatrical cut: it does a much better job at fleshing out the characters. This particularly helps for Cyborg and Steppenwolf. It kinda turns Cyborg into the coolest character of the DCEU. Also, the editing of the action scenes is much better.
- I love that it has a big, epic tone. The storytelling feels like it takes a lot of inspiration from Lord of the Rings.
- Some great character moments, particularly with Alfred (I also liked Flash running back in time, the killing of Steppenwolf and Aquaman’s scene with Vulko ). There are actually quite a few laughs in this, more so than you’d expect from a Snyder film.
- The score is good (ignoring the overplayed WW theme).
Cons:
- It looks kinda hideous. There is an artificial and fake feeling to most of the scenes. The way it’s directed and shot can only be described as cheap and a visual overkill.
- Casting. Some of the main actors aren’t competent enough to star in a film like this. As long as they keep Momoa, Gadot and Miller, these films will always feel like discount Avengers films.
- It kinda drags, there are some scenes that could’ve been cut or shortened in order to improve the pacing. This is one of the things the theatrical cut does way better, even if it’s much more bland as a cut.
- The Flash still runs and acts like a moron. It particularly stands out in this cut because his Looney Tunes-esque antics are cringeworthy and don’t fit here, and his character still feels very barebones.
- Like BvS, the setting up of future films feels very clunky and forced.
- Though nowhere near as bad as in BvS, I once again noticed some painfully overwritten and forced dialogue.
In short:
Is it better than the theatrical cut, or BvS? Yes.
Is it a good movie? Not by any metric.
3.5/10
[8.6/10] So there was a post on Reddit the other day, asking when movies stopped showing people getting into elevators. OK, it’s more complicated than that, but that’s the gist of it. Movies used to show their characters walking to the door, walking down the hallway, getting into the car, stopping for gas, rolling on, arriving at their house, opening the door, and boom, that’s how you got to the next scene. Then, Godard happened, and suddenly you just cut past that stuff. The character was just in one room and then in the next and with a brief establishing shot or transition or even nothing more than the switch of backdrop, we eventually trust the audience to understand that the character did all that boring stuff in the meantime.
It’s the grammar and literacy of film audiences, and it’s just baked into our brains at this point. You don’t need to be told that Michel Poiccard didn’t apparate from one part of Marseille to another. We understand it intuitively in a way that audiences in the 1960s didn’t because we were raised on it. Maybe not to the degree that BoJack Horseman was raised on film and television, but still we know.
There are expectations on how this whole T.V. show thing works. Even in the post-Sopranos, peak T.V. era where everyone wants to do something a little differently, there’s basic rules for what television is, and how its deployed. You may not have A-plots and B-plots. You may not have three cameras or rising and falling action. But there are rules, damnit, and you’d better abide by most of them or risk alienating your audience (or taking refuge in being confusing which means your show is daring and smart).
And one of those rules, not in so many words, is don’t just have your character stand around and talk to the audience for half an hour. Save it for your one man show. Leave it on the stage. But for television, you need dynamism, you need things happening, you need multiple characters and incident and developments or people will get bored. You can’t leave your main character naked out there, especially in an animated show, when you’re not even limited to sets or locations or visual variety in the way that live action does.
But BoJack Horseman does. It gives you 21 uninterrupted minutes of its title character giving his mother’s eulogy, recounting his family history, doing a gallows humor-filled stand up routine, and processing the death of a woman he hated but still wanted approval from in one giant stream of consciousness presentation.
There’s interludes of humor in the form of those black comedy bits and the occasional musical accompaniment gag. There’s a cold open that flashes back to a glimpse of BoJack’s emotionally screwed up and emotionally screwing up father, and of BoJack’s first taste of how he thinks he’s supposed to process his mother’s absence. But for the most part, it’s just BoJack, in a room, practically talking directly to the audience, for a whole episode.
It is bananas. You could perform it as a monologue for your high school. You could print the whole thing out and turn it into one of those giant movie posters where the words make up the imagery of the film in some kind of literary pointillism. You could listen to it in the car and not miss much beyond the occasional coffin-side glance or impressionistic moment. It’s not something that had to be on television, that could only work in this medium.
And somehow, that’s what makes it feel as bold as it does, because it chooses to set aside all those tools in the T.V. toolbox that help make us feel things: the sad music, the hauntingly lit scene, the expressive reactions of other characters. It eschews using those same sweetners that help keep up the audience’s interest during a half-hour sitcom: scene changes, change-of-pace sideplots, pure comic relief. And instead it just gives you a sad, messed up horse on stage, digesting his relationship with his parents in real time for what is an eternity on television, and hopes it can keep your attention, make you feel BoJack’s pain, and thread the complex emotional and familial needles the series has been toying with for four and half season, with words alone.
Television is, as BoJack and BoJack wink at, considered more of a writer’s medium than a visual medium like film. That’s changing, but it comes from the fact that television started out as something much cheaper, much faster, and much more disposable than its cinematic brethren. There wasn’t money or time to worry about fancy images or incredible sets or stunning cinematography. You needed to film twenty something episode in about as many weeks and do it on the budget provided, which meant the spark had to come from the talents of performers like Lucille Ball and the skills of writers who could make three cameras and two rooms feel like an entire world.
That’s the advantage of the T.G.I.F. shows that Horsin’ Around is spoofing. Yeah, it’s easy to make fun at the laugh track or the outrageous situations, or the cornball humor. But those shows emerged from a long and proud tradition, of folks who may have been doing what they had to for a paycheck, but who also made some magic with the meager tools at their disposal, who taught a generation of latchkey kids and people whose lives were far removed from the ease and security of a T.V. family what good could look and feel like it.
It’s a feeling that BoJack has been chasing for his entire life, and it’s led him here, to twenty-minute half-rant/half-confession delivered to his mother’s coffin. And in those twenty minutes, he chews on his confused feelings about his parents, the way that he doesn't so much mourn his mother but mourns the end of a possibility for love from her than he didn’t really believe in in the first place, the way that he tacitly admits his father taught him not to rely on her or anyone, the way he acknowledges the screwed up solace in admitting that you’re drowning together as a family, the way he cherishes those brief respites when you can stop and see your family being as graceful and happy as anyone else’s, the way we confuse and expect big gestures in lieu of the everyday work of being good, the way we look for hidden depths and transcendent meaning in coffee mugs and I.C.U. signs and sad horse shows that may or may not be able to sustain them.
He does it all from a podium, a lecturn, a stage, that lets all that raw emotion and complicated feeling spill out and just sit there with the audience. There’s no subplot to cut to, no wacky interlude from Todd to take the edge off, no break from a man making peace with the fact that he’ll never make peace over this. It’s just there, in one big dose, for BoJack and the audience to have to swallow at the same time, in a way that T.V. almost never makes you do.
T.V. is usually gentler, easier, more escapist than that, even at its most challenging and un-user friendly. If you watch the 1960s Star Trek series you can see the wild new locales the show journeys to every week, the occasionally repetitive but differently-flavored guest stars who would arrive on a daily basis to fight our heroes or help them or just create a problem for them to be solved. And if you watched long enough, you would recognize that every other episode seems to have Captain Kirk schmoozing, smooching, and seducing his way out of (or into) whatever the problem of the week is.
It’s easy to write of Kirk as a womanizer until you realize that T.V. was different in the 1960s. However more colorful and adventure-filled Star Trek was relative to the twenty-minute speech of “Free Churro”, it was also meant to be disposable, watched once and never seen again, before Netflix binges or home video or even syndication were reasonably expectations for people to string all these disparate stories together in one cohesive whole.
You realize, then, that Kirk wasn’t meant to be a lothario in a series of continuing adventures. He was meant to be a passionate man in a bunch of disconnected stories that happened to feature the same characters. He didn’t leap from bed to bed -- he was just fated by the laws of television to find The One over and over again, because like BoJack says, and the arrival of the Starship Enterprise in last year’s Star Trek Discovery vindicates, the show just goes on.
That’s what we do when people die. We try to make sense of their life, and our relationships with them. We try to take all those individual moments that they lived, all those big events, and the moments that we shared with them, and sew them together into some sort of narrative that makes sense to us.
But lives aren’t stories. They don’t always have happy endings, or arcs, or resolution. Sometimes they just end. Sometimes you only see part of who your parents were and are and try construct the rest into something you can extract meaning from. Sometimes you only feel the ways your absent friends shaped you, or scarred you, and try to understand how and why it happened now that they’re no longer around to be asked. Sometimes you take that rush of moments and try to build it up into something you can wrap your head around, a series of episodes with lovable characters and continuity and choices that are as comprehensible as they are kind.
And sometimes, someone important in your life is gone and everything’s worse now. There are rules for television, unwritten stricture for how we communicate with one another in the medium, expectations that the audience can walk in with that may be subverted but have to be respected.
But life and death have no rules other than that each of us must experience both, however brief or painful or confusing that may be. And there are no rules for grief, the process by which we try to come to terms with a parent’s death, the marks their presence and absence have left on our lives. So BoJack Horseman breaks the rules of television, stops telling us stories, and just gives us twenty minutes of raw, writerly confession and digestion, as interconnected and familiar and yet unknowable as the real life tangles of being alive and watching someone die, without the comforts the glowing screen normally provides its hero, or its audience.
Ahhhhhh i’m so happy they are not shying away from the tough conversations on what it means to be Captain America in this decade. I love symbolism in storytelling and there’s no stronger symbol than that shield, and the way they have used it as a vehicle and representative of the different American identities (good and (really) bad) has been incredible.
Steve Rogers, John Walker, Sam Wilson and Isaiah Bradley all represent sides of the US that co-exist, and John Walker being the effective Captain America for most of this show isn’t accidental - he’s the side of America that’s most present and salient right now (in the world off the screen), but ending the show with Sam Wilson carrying that shield - and going through all the issues that that might bring up - is as powerful a message as any - one of hope and of what the US should aspire to be. Steve Rogers is no longer enough, Steve Rogers is the American Dream - Isaiah Bradley the American Reality - and Sam Wilson is both. This show, and all of Captain America’s storyline, is about so much more than just men in spandex and they’ve done a fantastic job taking it even further here. Glad Marvel is still delivering after so many years, makes me proud to be a fan!
Terribly boring. Doubt I’ll continue past episode 2. Just uninteresting and not funny.
update: watched the entire series.
still uninteresting, still not funny, the only thing worse than this in the MCU is Captain Marvel
homie, they got walton FUCKING goggins up in this bitch
Like an orgy: lots of action and sensations, though a bit messy and will leave you feeling empty and under-satisfied when you're done.
Those of you who loved the charm and comedy of the first Ant-Man are going to be as let down as a Chinese weather balloon.
Terribly human, for good and bad, Civil War does not shy away from the message it’s trying to portray. The military action sequences are some of the best I’ve ever experienced, and in IMAX each gunshot rang in my ears.
The music was anxiety inducing, even during the calm moments, we feel the characters stress and emotions.
Fantastic film. I wish there was more explanation and world building so we knew why the country was in this state, but I understand the directors decision not to muddy the waters of what he wanted to say.
If you’d ask me what the highlights of the previous 2 Ant-Man movies are, I’d probably answer: I don’t remember much about them, but I liked those quirky scenes narrated by Michael Peña and the creative use of shrinking powers during the set pieces. For as forgettable as both movies are, at least I still remember the set piece with the train in the first movie, or the kitchen fight from the second movie. With this movie, I'm already having trouble remembering any specifics, because all of those typical Edgar Wright touches have been erased in favor of being a big CGI extravaganza. So, allow me to do a general breakdown of the three acts instead.
1st act: We get a set-up that's similar to Spiderman: No Way Home, which means it’s in a hurry to get to the main dish, making every main character look like an irresponsible dumbass in the process. Once we get to the quantum realm, we're met with a lot of cringe comedy. The design of the world is fine, it feels like a mashup of prequel era Star Wars, Avatar, The Fifth Element and Spy Kids, not like an original creation. A stronger, visionary director probably would've made a big difference here, or at least one who knows how to use the volume stages, because that might’ve avoided the Spy Kids comparisons.
2nd act: Jonathan Majors arrives to do some actual acting, and he somehow pulls it off despite the hammy, pseudo-intellectual lines given to him by the script. Michelle Pfeiffer also gets some time to shine, when she's on the screen with Majors it feels like the movie actually comes to life for a brief second. Still, the scenes with Kang feel tonally inconsistent with the rest of the movie, and I’m not sold on the idea of him being the Avengers level threat we’ve been waiting for. When it comes to the other actors, most of them are given nothing interesting to do, the supposed co-lead of this movie (according to the title) included. I don't like picking on younger actors, but it needs to be said that Emma Fuhrmann expressed more emotion during her 10 second appearance as Cassie Lang in Avengers: Endgame than Kathryn Newton did here. In terms of story, this portion of the movie is all about set-up and clunky exposition as delivered through monologues. One of the characters even gets introduced with his own 'previously on Ant-Man' recap, which I find insulting and shows what little faith this studio has in its audience. Besides, it probably would’ve been better to cut this character, because his inclusion is easily one of Marvel's worst creative decisions (the design and visual effects are laughable). Generally I'd say this act is pretty boring, and occasionally embarrassing.
3rd act: The movie decides it wants to be Aquaman instead, so we're getting an extended battle sequence of stuff fighting other stuff, with plenty of flashes, lasers and more stuff. It's big, it's loud, and I check out. Every cheesy crowdpleaser deserves its fair share of deus ex machina moments, but this movie spams the action movie trope of 'our main character is in peril only to get saved at the very last moment' to death at this point. Furthermore, the cringe comedy makes a big return, with Corey Stoll delivering a line so bad that it will become a meme (you'll know once you see the movie). More punchy stuff, more pew pew, more 'comedy', and thankfully the movie finally decides it has wasted enough of my time. We get a final montage that includes the first good joke of the movie, and the credits roll. Nothing is achieved, absolutely nothing. This is a cynically conceived advertisement that does not deserve your time.
3/10
what a stupid show. Hollywood/Disney outdid themselves on showing their stupidity on this one . waste of file time and money.
Jonathan Majors , love the dude, but that performance was godawful. He kinda reminded me of Jesse Eisenberg in Batman V Superman
Filler? This episode has more character development than all the previous ones! Man, you people really want action for 50 minutes? Also, I'm not surprise white people don't like when characters talk about race. It makes them uncomfortable. Same reaction to this week's episode of This Is Us. sigh
Downloading a power source...................... WTF
what a disappointing finale to a show that has been mostly lacklustre. Loki and Syvie spent most of it sitting down and talking which doesn't exactly make for an exciting episode. some questions were answered, but we were still left with more questions than answers. the reveal of Kang as the one behind the TVA was expected but was still underwhelming for several reasons. not once was he referred to as Kang, he wasn't wearing his iconic armour from the comics and the actor playing him came across as too jovial when Kang should be menacing.
oh well, Loki and Syvie finally kiss, so at least the shippers will be happy
Normally, I like Charlie Kaufman, but this is him at his most pretentious.
Not that it’s all bad, I actually liked most of the first long scene in the car.
It’s the kind of scene that will make many casual viewers dismiss the film right away (due to its length), but I thought it set up both of our leads very well.
Then they arrive at the parents’ house, and my opinion on the film did a 180.
It does what every annoying art movie does (not saying all art movies are like that, I like a lot of them): everything starts to get weird for the sake of trying to be interesting, but without any artistic reasoning.
For example, the acting becomes a nonsensical mix of very grounded performances (our leads) on one side, and extremely heightened, cartoony perfomances on the other side (the parents).
Also, the cinematography is pedestrian at best, and I fail to see the reasoning behind the chosen aspect ratio (unlike films like The Lifghthouse or Mommy).
Just stick to writing, Charlie.
4/10
It’s a shame that such a beautiful and well done show is littered with such stupid comments about language. Seriously it’s not that big of a deal.
Funny how most people think this is boring filler stuff, or even dislike the whole show, while I do like it more and more.
For me it seems this is the first time that Marvel puts substance over effects. There is an actually story involved instead of just knitting together CGI shots. Of course there is an agenda in all of this, there is no denying that. But I don't see this as a bad thing.
And I'm looking very much forward to the final episode now.
This is in many ways the exact movie that The Lego Batman Movie made fun of.
So, I can totally understand if this film reads like self-parody to some (I'll admit, the gravely film noir detective voice over was a bit much, it's been parodied to death at this point), but I'd argue that it's overall a refreshing take on the character in a well thought out story that includes some excellent performances. Paul Dano, Robert Pattinson and Zoe Kravitz all nail their roles.
It's a typical Matt Reeves blockbuster in every sense. It's grounded, serious, and there's a strong emphasis on drama/tension, and less on action. The production and style of this thing are phenomenal. Excellent cinematography, which should be Oscar nominated (but probably won't), music, production value, costumes, directing, etcetera. It's grim, it's dark, it's gritty, but it doesn't feel like it's directed by a 16 year old edgelord either. I love how the colour palette of this film is restricted to black, grey, orange and red. It's perfect, taking clear influences from David Fincher films, neo noir detectives and '70s paranoia thrillers (maybe a hint of Marvel Netflix as well). I hope it reinvents the wheel for many blockbusters to come.
Its biggest problem are the pacing and the characters. I'm fine with defending longer films, but this isn't a smooth 3 hour ride. It holds its cards very close to the chest during the first half, to the point where it's hard to engage with and can get kinda boring. It's a lot of set-up, mood and atmosphere, and not much else. It doesn't really hook you with its characters or the dramatic intrigue of the story, as I didn't find this slow moving mystery compelling enough by itself (partially because it doesn't really engage the audience; you can't solve it by yourself). There's not even that much action to compensate, besides a few quick beats here and there.
It also relies too much on the cultural iconography of Batman and Catwoman that already exists in our current zeitgeist, and while I might know those characters as cultural icons, I don't know this Batman, or this Catwoman. It eventually gets there though, as The Riddler and Catwoman get a lot more interesting in their own right as the film goes along, but it takes a long time. I love that this Riddler is essentially re-imagined to be a radicalized 4 Chan incel , which feels very relevant for today. Still, we know very little about Batman by the end of it (besides his brooding indie rockstar behavior), which is mostly due to the general lack of Bruce Wayne in the film. Batman cannot be interesting without a good Bruce Wayne accompanying him. That's nothing against Robert Pattinson, he's very good in it, but the writing for his character is very one note. As a film, it would've benefitted a lot from a deeper dive into his psyche, because the emotional arc of his character doesn't feel earned by the end.
Still, these issues could easily be fixed in a sequel, it's a good enough foundation for a series of great Batman films.
7/10
Amazed that this episode has been received so well... It was a complete change of tone, and not in a good way. Felt like a cheap episode of Doctor Who.
While exiting the theater, my brother commented that the trailers for this movie were misleading, as he thought it would explore more of the details, perhaps even the origin, of the titular civil war. Instead, the civil war is simply a back drop for a deep character study and a sequence of well acted and incredibly well shot vignettes that explore the small scale affects of the war while sweeping the practical details under the rug. Interestingly, it even feels like the underlying politics behind the division are kept intentionally out of focus. Luckily, I don't watch trailers, so I didn't experience this disconnect and could appreciate the movie for what it is - and what it is, is great.
First, I want to call out the technical filmmaking. As I already mentioned, this movie is incredibly well shot, and though I didn't see it in IMAX, I can safely say that it is deserving of the format. Perhaps even more impressive though was the sound, as the action sequences were explosive, with every gun shot feeling far more powerful than I've come to expect out of recent films. Combine that with the chaotic mix of shouting soldiers, helicopters overhead, and cleverly leveraged silence, and you get an Oscar worthy sound design. This sound also heavily contributes to the film's successful use of tension, which was near constant throughout.
When it comes to the writing, this movie is actually incredibly simple. In a lot of ways, it plays like a zombie road trip (which the director is no stranger to, having written 28 days/weeks later), except instead of zombies it's random militia encounters. But the key point is that each sequence is largely stand alone, with the throughline being only the characters. But because the characters are complex/compelling and each sequence offers some unique obstacle or idea, the vignette structure is a success despite lacking some narrative connective tissue. On top of that, the moment to moment dialogue is fantastic. I think it also helps that the film keeps its length reasonable, as this structure might have outstayed its welcome at 2+ hours.
Finally, I've got to call out the performances, which are all fantastic. I'm sure Kirsten Dunst and Caille Spaeny will get plenty of deserved praise, but Wagner Moura's performance might have been my favorite. Jesse Plemons also deserves a shoutout for nailing his disturbing role.
Saw an advance screening of this one.
This is one of the most original and creative films I have ever seen. In the words of Casetify defending their copyright theft: it's "a bastion of originality".
Let's get a quick rundown of the plot:
Some farmers are chilling on their farm, enjoying their peaceful life. They have enough grain for themselves and a little extra. Big evil outsiders come in, and want their grain. This is a problem, because they want all of it. So the evil outsiders announce that they'll be back in ten weeks to take all of their grain, and boy howdy had they better have that grain ready, or else bad things will befall this little peaceful farming town. So the peaceful farmers decide to send out two of their people to go and find some SPACE WARRIORS:tm: to defend them from the evil empire.
At this point, you're probably saying to yourself, "This sounds familiar", but I assure you, it's a story never been seen before on film. Not once.
checks notes
- Seven Samurai
- The Magnificent Seven
- Battle Beyond the Stars
- A Bug's Life
- Star Trek Enterprise: Marauders
- The Magnificent Seven (again)
- etc, etc, etc
Now, what makes this one different, is that it's with Star Wars vibes!
rechecks notes
Oops Mandalorian did this one too in S1E4, "Sanctuary".
So what this movie lacks in originality, it surely makes up for in characters, right? Wrong! Out of the six or seven main characters in this film, all of them get less development than a random spider villain that shows up briefly halfway through. There are two interesting characters, one of which is the main character, Kora, whose flashback stories are infinitely more interesting than her present predicament, and Jimmy, a robot voiced wonderfully by Anthony Hopkins, who disappears after about five minutes of screentime.
This movie consists of the main characters going to a place, seeing a person do something cool, stowing that person in their spaceship for later, repeated a few times. We get a cool scene of Shirtless Guy trying to ride a bird lion thing, which is lifted straight from Avatar, a very derivative film in it's own right. There's a scene of Asian Sword Lady taking down a spider person, which is cool but again has no impact on the story or other characters whatsoever. It's a list of cool action scenes Snyder wanted to string together and came up with some very thin reasoning to get there. It also has the advantage of being a "Part 1", which means the movie is all setup and no payoffs, so nothing really happens in this film. The Moon does not Rebel.
The main Nazi Guy does get killed by our main hero, which should be a pretty permanent thing given that he is in fact dead. I almost gave Snyder a pass here for this next part, because earlier in the movie, he sets up a character that can bring things back to life! Holy reveal, Batman, she's still alive! Nope, they hook him up to some hoses and put him in a water balloon, and he's all better and more ready than ever to subjugate some farmers on a back moon somewhere for some grain, sans the re-aliving princess.
I will give a little credit to the visuals of the film; they're outstanding. This movie was great to look at, even better if you only look at the trailer and don't have to deal with the plot, which is what this film was designed for. Most of the exciting trailer shots were five second flashbacks which weren't fleshed out. I watched more slow motion shots of rice in this movie than actual characters interacting.
To paraphrase Honest Trailers' criticism of Nolan's Tenet: This movie is not Zack Snyder at his best, but it's certainly Zack Snyder at his most.
All that being said, I had a great time. Solid movie. Would recommend. Can't wait for Part 2.
Honestly after all the fuss, all the hype, all the money spent to finish this...we’ve essentially got basically the exact same movie.
Sure this fixes some of the issues with the theatrical version, removing the kinda pointless Russian family scenes for example. However instead it replaces them with other unnecessary scenes, like the Flash saving a woman who I think is supposed to be Iris West not that she ever says her name or does this have any bearing on the rest of the movie. Sprinkle in a little bit of Darkside where he wasn’t before and pad out with long slow mo sequences motion and establishment shots.
I’m not saying this is terrible, it’s not, just most of what works is already present in the theatrical cut, its just stretched out. I thought the theatrical was fine a 6/10 with some issues...this cut is the same a 6/10 improves on some aspects but is just a bit too long and replaces the old issues with slightly different ones.
Between these two different versions is a good 7/10 2 and a half to 3 hour movie somewhere.
I do hope it will get better than this... and 22 minutes for one episode?? 7 minutes for credits? Boring !!
Honestly this episode could have been condensed into 5 or 10 minutes. Too much talking and just in general nothing really going on until the end, and then we get a predictable plot twist. I mean just a bad season finale. It just sprinkles enough at the end to keep you interested for the second season. Unless season two is better, this show ain’t worth it at all. But on the other hand I’m tired of waiting for the second season every damn time. It used to be that the pilot is supposed to hook you. And don’t get me started how much of a scam 6 episodes in one season is.
Overall this episode was just meh, which doesn’t make it look very good since it’s the season finale.
Dawn of the dead is one of my favorite zombie movies so I was really excited for this!
I'm so disappointed... A stupid story where nothing made sense! If that boss only needed that head why did the others needed to die? They could just take the money and the head! Everyone happy... And why did those 3 chicks stay in that room?! They could try to escape... It's not like they were chained or in a locked room!
Well, I just finished the series. What do I think?
WandaVision began with a solid start. The whole sitcom format was always engaging, as it paid homage to a genre and era of television I haven't experienced. With these first few episodes, the mystery that follows each strange happening was interesting and had me excited to see the next episode. I wanted to see Wanda deal with her grief and come to terms with her reality.
Darcy Lewis, Jimmy Woo, and Monica Rambeau appeared, and I have to say the show lost some of my interest. Seeing Monica reappear in a post-snap world was exciting, and Jimmy Woo and Darcy Lewis were entertaining as hell! I was still curious about what was going to happen next, but I was a little weary.
Then the last few episodes rolled around. Monica Rambeau suddenly gets powers (for no reason?), Agatha pretends she's all-knowing by spewing exposition, and the show drops Quick Silver, Rambeau, Woo and Darcy to give Wanda and her family more screen time.
Finally, the last episode disappoints. I was so bored watching CGI fights that have no substance underneath them. Vision talking to the other Vision was cool and probably the best thing in the last three episodes. But then we go back to Wanda. She figures out that she's torturing people and finally lets go of her fake reality. But not because she's learnt to deal with her grief but because... uh... I don't know.
She lets go of her fake reality, and this happens,
Monica Rambeau: "They'll never know what you sacrificed for them."
Wanda Maximoff: "I wouldn't change how they see me."
But she sacrificed nothing; she was holding these people hostage, torturing them; she gave up a fantasy for them. Way to go, Wanda! Afterwards, she runs off to a cabin and doesn't have to face any consequences for her villainous actions. Yay!
So I guess the show is about how we're all destined to do terrible things and get away with it?
Overall, WandaVision is a fun time. Although the sitcom stuff had me weary, I preferred it to the answers we got in the last few episodes. Sometimes, the mystery is better than the answer.
TECHNICAL SCORE: 6/10
ENJOYMENT SCORE: 5.5/10
After reading a rave review by a friend, I started binging this new Netflix series today. The English dubbing is horrible so do yourself a favour and set the audio to German and the subtitles to English. The acting is very good and shouldn't be ruined by poor dubbing performances. This series is darkly mysterious, more like the original TWIN PEAKS (without the bizarre humour), although it is being compared to STRANGER THINGS (although I don't see many similarities in the three episodes I've watched so far). The mystery is compelling - take in all the up front hints given before the pilot's opening credits - they set you thinking in the right direction. I got bogged down in episode 3 and had to make a chart of family relationships, but once I'd conquered the who's who I was back into the mystery. Looks promising. I'll come back with a final rating but so far I give it an 8 (great) out of 10 with the potential for a 9 (superb). [Who-done-it, What-really-happened Mystery]. A good work out for those little grey cells (I wonder how many calories will that work out burn in my LaZboy chair?) **Just finished season 1 (yes, it doesn't resolve but catapults us into a further plain) WOW, my brain is tired. So many threads, so many resolves, so many themes (determinism, free will, religion, science, time, space, interdependent relationships, cause and effect). It goes down every lane. Complex, great storytelling. Great acting. Can't wait for another season. It well deserves at least a 9 (superb) out of 10, maybe even a 9.5.*
