A more awards friendly film from Paul Greengrass, even though stylistically it still has both of its feet firmly planted in that Jason Bourne style of filmmaking. Now, because that franchise rejects a lot of Hollywood conventions, the filmmaking here still feels respectful to the event. The subtle tricks of building tension are all there (close-ups of nervous people; people talking over each other; quick edits & a lot of handheld), which works for me. The difference is that Greengrass can’t fall back on set pieces or a pounding John Powell score, so that means that the storytelling becomes more important. Unfortunately, this is where the film struggles. I think the approach makes the end result come across as cold. It’s spreading time between a lot of different locations, and because of that you’re not really drawn in by any of the characters emotionally. On top of that it’s not that compelling as a story, it’s mostly a very matter-of-fact retelling of events. I like the simple, raw feel of it, but it could be more than just a vehicle for tension. Show me more of the emotional struggle of the other passengers, or focus on the political side as well if we’re not going to contain ourselves to the inside of the cabin. A little more artistic ambition probably would’ve made for a more memorable film, but this is still a rewarding (yet tough) watch.
6/10
Impossible to hate, feels very much like a Pixar movie. A simple story about solitude and friendship that hits all the right emotions. Its soulful melancholy and cute sense of humour will resonate with just about anyone, I think. Despite working with the silent film format, it’s still very good at building character and surprising the audience. It’s slightly overlong and repetitive in places, but as a story I like it. I also love the animation style and outstanding score, aesthetically it’s brewing with personality. There are a lot of different genres worked into the score (jazz, psychedelia, rock, disco), which is quite smart for a film where the music needs to do a lot of the heavy lifting. You can also tell they paid a lot of attention to the foley. Visually it’s a nice throwback to a more simplistic animation style. I do wish the character design was more distinct, however, because that’s a small area where the simplicity works against it. For example, Pixar’s really good at creating characters that are instantly recognizable from their design and that’s not so much the case here. Still, my gripes with this are fairly minor, it’s fun.
7/10
Pretty cool & distinct animation style, but I doubt I’ll remember much from this in the long term. As a story it’s simply way too formulaic, it uses every coming of age & sports movie trope in existence. On top of that I couldn’t get into the heavy-handed score and cheesy, overblown direction. It’s a game of basketball, we don’t need to pretend it’s the most epic thing ever with all the slo-mo, dramatic close-ups, inner monologues and J-rock. The interweaving flashbacks do a good job at fleshing out the characters, but again, it quickly becomes predictable and stale. The script reads like a draft a writer would come up with before they start experimenting with structure or arcs. I don’t know, maybe it hits harder for the intended teenager demographic, because I mostly see an empty film that tries way too hard to be cool and meaningful.
5/10
It reminds me of Lady Gaga. Clearly it’s campy and aware of its melodramatic trappings, but in the end it’s not in service of much. This isn’t really an attempt to deconstruct genre, nor does it include a theme or interesting commentary; it’s a pretty straightforward, kitschy thriller with too much of a soap opera vibe for my man brain to appreciate. A couple of its zesty moments are fun, but I found most of the dialogue quite dull. I could go into more detail, but clearly I’m not the target audience here, so I’ll keep it quick. Blake Lively understands the movie she’s making, Anna Kendrick plays the most annoying version of herself and Paul Feig isn’t putting in as much effort as he has in the past (terrible soundtrack & visually it looks like a Judd Apatow movie). I get the feeling Feig thinks the movie he’s making is a lot smarter than he thinks it is, but to me it felt lowbrow from beginning to end.
3/10
Funny, engaging and well made. It does carry that Monty Python signature of sophisticated silliness, but not in a way where it feels like the artists aren’t pushing themselves. I don’t think it’s Cleese’s best work by any means, but I still like we got his take on a simple, irreverent crowdpleaser. Great acting by everyone involved, I wouldn’t be surprised if Jamie Lee Curtis got her role in True Lies based on this. Filmmaking is quite good, maybe it could’ve used some trimming or stronger visual work, but I like that it stylistically embraces how English it is.
7.5/10
When did this turn into the new Transformers? At this point it’s pretty much the exact same formula, isn’t it? A combination of big, soulless monster fights interspersed with overqualified actors playing annoying characters. The script and direction suck, but who are we kidding by pretending anyone cares about that. Maybe the direction isn’t quite as lowbrow as Bayformers, but at least those movies had some personality to them. Just look at the difference in scale and visual craft alone. I love how you can tell they spent huge amounts of money on the CGI here, yet there isn’t a single shot where the titular creatures or environments look convincing. As a movie it’s very straightforward, long and generic, clearly aiming to be fun and self-aware but not really getting there due to a lack of eccentricity in its approach. I really don’t think this needs to be as respectable or well written as the latest Planet of the Apes trilogy for it to work. Honestly going for dumb fun makes sense with this material, but what they’ve landed on here feels like Minions for 12 year olds to me, just way too corporate and devoid of any real charm or creativity. You should get someone at the helm here with a really good understanding of silent film, someone who’s willing to bring out more of the absurdity and knows how to build character through motion. The fights should be creative and colourful, they shouldn’t feel like they’re directed by Roland Emmerich. Maybe experiment with a more stylized or heightened reality, as there’s no real reason for most of this to be set in recognizable locations. If the vision continues to be this bland going forward, I feel no desire to check out more of it. It’s one of the most non-descript, forgettable big films in recent memory.
2.5/10
An incredibly fun genre movie that hits a wide range of emotions while never trivializing its own subject matter. Lots of fun scenes, quotable one liners, eclectic song choices and memorable characters. DiCaprio, Foxx, Jackson and Waltz are all scene stealers, Quentin continues to improve as a director (easily his strongest visual work until that point; the blending of genres feels seamless). There’s some stuff that could use trimming or should be cut entirely (e.g. the scene where Quentin himself cameos with a laughable Australian accent), and there are a few moments where the tone feels muddled, but overall it’s another strong outing in the director’s filmography.
7.5/10
I'm kinda sick of arthouse films copying the Nicolas Winding Refn aesthetic, but if you're gonna do it this well, I can't complain. Love the synth score and neon aesthetic, it's easily its strongest asset. Unfortunately, the script and overall direction are junk. I feel like it's trying to give you the Brian de Palma/John Carpenter version of something like Bound or Thelma & Louise, and if that sounds like an awkward mix of tones, you'd be right. I really didn't care for the romance that's set-up during the first act due to the awkward dialogue, flat characterization and lack of chemistry between the two leads. Once the crime plot develops, it has a hard time justifying the motivations of characters in a way that doesn't feel contrived or stupid. It gradually becomes more camp as it goes along, but not in a way that I found particularly rewarding. By the time it reaches its conclusion I was laughing at how unapologetically trashy the film gets, leaving any real attempt at substance in the rear view mirror in favour of something more groteseque, which falls completely flat. Leading up to those moments, it kinda feels like the film wants to have it both ways, because it integrates these poorly executed surrealist moments and an underdeveloped theme of female body language that doesn't quite jell with the rest of the plot. It's one of those films that would've benefitted from less pretension and instead focussing on making sure that you care about the central relationship, because the end result here is quite a mess.
4/10
Deadpool returns with a more ambitious sequel and a director who’s in over his head. Structurally this thing is almost completely broken, right from the start it immediately becomes too convoluted. The prologue takes a risk by stripping away one of the best things about the first film, but it doesn’t follow up on this grief arc and resolves in a way where it doesn’t feel like it reaches a real pay-off. In between it focusses on two different threads. The stuff with Russell and the school principal doesn’t get the proper emotional development it should, with Julian Dennison giving one of the most annoying child performances of the 2010s. On top of that it also wants to rip off The Terminator, which worked for Days of Future Past, but here the motivations of characters quickly become muddled or they’ll just switch sides whenever the script needs them to. By the time we reach the end of act 2 it’s a total mess that reeks of studio interference, rewrites and re-edits. Now that doesn’t need to be the be all and end all for a Deadpool movie. However, the comedy becomes stale due to how many jokes it’s rehashing from the first one, nor does it know when to cut back on Reynolds’ improv. Most of the humour here is quite eye rolling, though there are a few new bits I enjoyed here and there (the ‘pay-off’ to the X-force, calling Cable a racist for no reason). Finally, the aesthetic is a pretty major downgrade from the first film. The cinematography and general production values look cheap (with a lot of the CGI being blatantly unfinished), while the ironic use of shitty needle drops quickly becomes tired. It’s like they didn’t learn their lesson from the third act of Deadpool, because all the action is turned up to the point where it looks ugly and unmemorable. The entire time I kept thinking about how much rather I’d watch an entire film of the action montage that’s shown during the prologue. Instead this favors being a bigger, dumber Hollywood sequel that isn’t really about anything. It tries to sell you on this idea that it’s about family, but that somehow rings even less true than during every Fast and Furious movie. I honestly don’t see why this one gets a pass from most people, to me it’s one of the most overrated comicbook films ever made.
3/10
I’ve never understood the cult love for this one. Really bland, predictable genre film that doesn’t bring anything to the table besides one iconic scene. The directing is a cheap knockoff of Greengrass’ Bourne films (lots of shaky cam/quick cut bullshit; generic score) and its script is about as by the numbers as you could get (typical set-up; predictable arcs; no real substance). Some of the detective stuff’s kinda fun but it relies so much on convenience and contrivances that I’d feel stupid for genuinely praising it. I wonder if its appeal for audiences mostly came down to seeing Liam Neeson do a film like this for the first time, because I just don’t see what’s interesting about its approach to action or storytelling. It’s not incompetent or anything (Liam Neeson keeps this thing watchable, that’s for sure), but this really should’ve been forgotten by now.
4/10
This one’s still a lot of fun. The first two acts are so smooth and entertaining that they brilliantly distract from how unimaginative the plot is. Its the type of main character opens up a lot of narrative possibilities that can immediately provide a distinct signature for a filmmaker. Add to that the fun editing, well directed action, interesting side characters and natural chemistry between Reynolds and Baccarin, and you have a film that feels like a refreshing breeze. Sure, not every jokes works. There are times where you wish the director reined Reynolds in a little more, or the screenwriters used references that feel a little more contemporary, but most of the humour still feels really fresh. The deconstruction of superhero tropes and self referential critiques of the X-Men brand are a lot of fun in particular. Unfortunately, a lot of its personality is lost during the third act. There’s a stronger focus on its underdeveloped villain and the final set piece feels generic from an action perspective (though it’s definitely not the type of third act that can often derail a film like this). It’s like the film knows that the arc between Wade and Vanessa has more weight to it, so it saves that pay-off until the very end. It’s the type of ending that feels satisfying from a character perspective, but on a subtextual level it basically turns into another ‘love conquers everything’ type of message, which is kinda safe for something that’s trying to be so subversive. Technically it’s quite solid. Really appreciate the tactile feeling to the choreography and suit, as well as neat visual and song choices. It could’ve used a stronger score though, because that’s another area where the film feels slightly watered down and generic. Still, I’d easily recommend this to anyone who hasn’t completely let go of their inner 15 year old.
6.5/10
Really solid, and definitely one the best third acts in superhero films. I always love when they integrate real world events into these movies. It’s one of the few prequels that builds interestingly on the lore of the original films without ever feeling redundant, it’s very satisfying to see the pieces fall into place. They nailed the casting of Magneto and Charles Xavier once again, even when these movies got bad you could always count on McAvoy and Fassbender elevating them with their performances. The rest of the team is fine (very nice to see Jennifer Lawrence give an actual performance in these movies), they’re clearly appealing to a teenager demographic with the casting, which leads to some odd choices with the direction and dialogue, but they keep it fun overall. The focus is always on the characters and setting up the team, rather than romance or melodrama. There’s definitely some stuff in there that I’d cut (e.g. romance between Raven and Hank), but it’s pretty well paced overall. The excellent villain and score are also major contributors to the film working as well as it does (why didn’t they keep this Magneto theme going forward?). However, looking at the film as a whole, it does feel somewhat underbudgeted. There’s obvious cheapness to the some of the effects work and it doesn’t feel like enough of Matthew Vaughn’s voice comes through visually. His signature shows up in some of the scene transitions, but his style is clearly neutered here, particularly during a lot of the so-so action sequences. Nevertheless, it’s a very easy recommendation and easily one of the best in the franchise.
7/10
Really interesting, atmospheric depiction of Japan in this one. Wolverine dealing with the grief of Jean is a fitting arc following the X-Men trilogy, although even with this film you could already tell Mangold’s directorial sensibilities and Jackman’s excellent portrayal would benefit from an R rating. The cinematography and contained action sequences are also quite admirable. The problems lie mostly in the writing. For the first two acts it sets up this yakuza plotline, which is not very engaging because the script doesn’t know what to do with it. We’re splitting time between two equally uninteresting female co-leads, it sets up a romance in one scene that doesn’t go anywhere, we know way too early who the twist villain is going to be, there’s a lot of blunt exposition; it’s honestly quite forgettable. The acting from the cast surrounding Jackman isn’t all that strong either. During the third act it tries something different, but it kinda derails the whole movie. It’s a very schlocky, unsatisfying conclusion that reeks of studio meddling. All in all, it’s not a great movie, but you can see the seeds that would eventually give Mangold the idea for Logan.
4.5/10
There's two movies going on in here. The movie hooks you with its efficiency vs effectivity debate as personified by the characters played by Clooney en Kendrick. Clooney's character is really well defined and interesting, while Kendrick's a little more one-note and annoying, so that doesn't make for the most compelling drama. As the movie goes along, this plot falls by the wayside and it sets up an arc about Clooney's character needing to settle down in life. The way that that's presented to the viewer feels a little backwards, watching it now it feels like Clooney's take on relationships has become more accepted by society, but the movie insists that it's immature and a character flaw. Eventually it turns Clooney's views on relationships against himself, which leads to some interesting drama but you don't entirely buy he'd care this much about his life being empty. The resolution with Anna Kendrick's character is even less satisfying, it feels like it hits the reset button on a lot of the progress that was made before that and it goes with an ending that doesn't say much about anything. It's just not a great story, however there's definitely stuff to like here. The snappy editing, solid cinematography and witty dialogue make this an easy watch, it's a major directorial improvement compared to Juno. Clooney, who could play this type of role in his sleep, is great. Vera Farmiga has a great screen presence. These elements are just not enough for me to elevate it to something I'd recommend.
4.5/10
Probably more mindblowing for an American audience that barely gets any exposure to this kind of material from its own industry. For my taste, Guadagnino plays it way too safe. I was waiting for it to push beyond the melodrama into something more wild or messed up, and I never really got that. He's constantly flexing with impressive camerawork, great editing and a fantastic score, but what is it all in service of? There's not a lot more to this than very basic melodrama. Tennis is used a metaphor for innuendo and relationships, which becomes a bit eye-rolling as the film goes along. On top of that it's not nearly as sexy as some people are suggesting, it feels like a lot of foreplay and innuendo without a real pay-off at any point. His camera doesn't shy away from nudity or sweat, and Trent Reznor's score puts in a lot of work in turning up the heat, but you want it to push beyond that at some point. For me it doesn't really develop into anything surprising and the conclusion it ultimately goes with feels kinda lame because of it. Still, it does a good job at intriguing you with the personal struggles of the three main characters, all of which are well portrayed by the actors. Zendaya is a bit hard to read at times, though it could be intentional with the character she's playing. There's enough merit to the complexity of the characters and technical aspects that kept me from being bored, but the entire time I kept thinking about how much more interesting this could be with someone like Paul Verhoeven at the helm.
6/10
For a mainstream comedy it’s a little more high concept and clever than you might expect. Bill Murray in the lead role is perfection, it makes the whole movie work. His deadpan and dry sense of humour works brilliantly with this concept, and there’s a lot of well executed set-ups, gags and jokes on top of that. They pretty much do everything with the concept you could think of, because of that it never feels too repetitive or slow (which is the type of issue that can easily occur with time loop films). I love how the protagonist develops a god complex and eventually becomes a nihilistic, depressed asshole, which barely even registers to the viewer as the darkness is all buried under the schmaltzy, feel good tone. I’m less into the third act, however, as everything resolves in a way that’s a bit predictable and basic for my taste. I understand that it’s a holiday film, but it’s not the type of story where you want a ‘and they lived happily ever after’ type of ending. Moreover, I think the directing is fairly weak and continuously drags it down from being great. It looks flat and uncinematic, it’s got one of those scores that tells you how to feel at every turn and the acting of the supporting cast is all over the place. Still a fine watch overall, but definetely not the classic people pretend it is.
5.5/10
Awful, it’s almost impressive how little this achieves compared to Days of Future Past. It’s way too preoccupied with exposition and setting up new characters instead of telling a good story. It strips away the cerebral edge of the best X-men films and attempts a more straightforward plot, yet it doesn’t feel like much has happened by the end of it. Magneto has an arc but it’s the same one we’ve seen time and time again (not to mention that the final turn that completes his arc is especially clunky this time around), while everyone else is fighting for screen time. Singer cuts corners at every turn to awkwardly introduce new characters as quickly as possible, but I still don't know what to make of Scott, Jean, Nightcrawler, Psylocke, Storm, Angel or Jubilee. The villain, besides an interesting motivation, conveniently shows up wherever the plot needs him to. Oscar Isaac tries his best with the performance, but he can't elevate the comical design of the character and terrible lines given by the script. It just constantly fails to build things organically. The script's trying to keep things simple but it never feels harmonious. Two of its best scenes (eurythmics scene & Wolverine cameo) feel like they come from different films altogether. The sets, make-up and effects look schlocky, some of the acting is straight up bad (Jennifer Lawrence & Sophie Turner) and there’s almost no excitement or fun. The third act is the kind of boring CGI sludge this franchise had managed to mostly avoid until this point, it feels more like something from the DCEU or MCU playbook. All things considered, it’s really McAvoy and Fassbender that keep this thing watchable, and thankfully it sprinkles in a few good moments with those characters (e.g. forest scene). Everything else feels half-assed.
3.5/10
A funny, surprising chamber film about societal pretension. Maybe I missed some jokes due to my limited understanding of the French language, but even then you'll get a lot out of its dry humour. Loved the two main characters, which should be attributed to the excellent performances, because they both could've easily become annoying or hard to connect to. The construction of the plot, on the other hand, could've been a lot better. The general set-up and twists are farcical, which I had trouble getting into because of the straightforward visual and comedic style. It probably would've worked better for me with a more absurdist, eccentric tone, something like The Grand Budapest Hotel. A lot of what happens leads in one way or another to a dead end, so it doesn't feel like much is progressing until the end. The ending we do get feels a little inconclusive and unsatisfying, though I'm glad it doesn't go with the cheesy denouement it initially alludes to. Visually, I like that the film looked more cinematic than most American comedies, but you have to be a little more creative with the camera when most of the film takes place at the same location. This is no Rope or Reservoir Dogs, that's for sure. Overall, while it's one great director away from being something really special, I still recommend it to those who are looking for a different kind of comedic film.
6/10
I appreciate the director's trying something different, but he subtracts most of what makes the series work in the first place. The higher production values and serious tone draw attention to the fact that the movie's stupid and kitschy. Without the campy lens or Bruce Campbell it kinda becomes just another basic teen horror film, one with really bad acting, dialogue and characters. There's still some nice, atmospheric directing during the scenes in the forest, but most of this isn't very interesting or memorable. By comparison, the third act is a lot more fun because it pushes the film to a more gory, over the top place. It's unapologetically trashy, which I appreciate but it doesn't support much of the tone preceding it. I honestly think you'll get the most out of this experience by watching the final 20 minutes and pretending it's a short film.
4/10
This is kinda plain once you’ve seen the original. Snyder isn’t interested in the satire, this remake is a lot sleeker, faster and commercial. James Gunn’s script emphasizes the pulpy element of this story, which is great for a filmmaker like Snyder who tends to be at his best when he doesn’t overcomplicate things. As such, this has some admirable qualities to it. The filmmaking certainly isn’t devoid of personality, which immediately becomes clear during the impressive opening. The way that it’s presented makes it feel like a brother to Shaun of the Dead, it has a similar 2000s indie feel to it. The craft and acting are a lot more competent than Snyder’s more recent work, the pace/editing are smooth and the action is genuinely exciting to watch. He creates moments here that are tense, shocking and even … dare I say it … fun? Any moment that takes place at the rooftop definitely stands out in that regard. There’s a lot to respect about this for a debut feature, it seems like Snyder never had any trouble finding his directorial voice. However, the weaknesses are also pretty obvious. It’s too monotone throughout, the characters lack a distinct personality or arc, the score feels overblown (almost every horror beat is punctuated like you’re watching a parody) and some of the colour grading can get ugly (e.g. more than a few shots are blatantly overexposed). It’s not the most engaging film, but as a stylish, energetic genre exercise, the good outweighs the bad for me.
5.5/10
It cuts a lot of corners in the first 10 minutes, and I kinda wish they’d found the way to integrate most of that stuff into the first half of the broadcast, as it takes too long to get going. The possession movie it eventually morphs into is alright, albeit fairly predictable. A lot of the choices reminded me of James Wan horror vehicles, which I always have a hard time taking seriously. The movie seems to be aware of that too, because it’ll occasionally push things to a more schlocky, comical place that’ll strike a chord with Sam Raimi fans. Is it uneven because of that? Absolutely. In fact, I found a lot of this half baked. The social commentary (which feels like it’s borrowing a lot from Network) isn’t fleshed out properly, Dastmalchian’s performance should’ve been more sleazy and colourful and I just didn’t feel that much emotion by the end of it. The strength of this film lies much more in its faithful recreation of the 70s talkshow aesthetic, and I particularly like its commitment to the found footage feel, which feels lot more artful than the popular found footage stuff from over a decade ago. If only they put as much effort into making the sound as dusty and lo-fi, because the film generally sounds too clean and modern. Overall, it’s not really my thing but I can see why a lot of people like it.
4.5/10
Extremely tacky. Spastic editing, an assault of colour and sound, terrible acting (even McGregor, who survived George Lucas’ direction, completely sucks here), cringy dialogue and a lot of awful song choices which are meant to juxtapose the vaudeville aesthetic but don’t work. I almost respect it for being so unashamed about what it is, but it’s too annoying to demand any real respect. Over the top direction needs to be rooted in something, otherwise it’s just going to be kitschy. I guess that’s just the best way of summarizing it: none of this rings true, every genuine emotion is buried underneath endless layers of cheese. Avoid this overproduced mess at all cost.
1/10
I enjoyed it, but it’s loose to a fault. It’s one of those films where you could rearrange a lot of it and it wouldn’t make a difference, which is the type of issue a great hangout movie usually avoids. There are way too many characters, only a few of which are interesting. Linklater also goes way overboard with the amount of needle drops, some of which are too on the nose. Still, I loved the authentic portrayal of 70s teenagers, filmmaking, acting and most of all the very distinct voice that can be found in the dialogue. It’s quotable and somewhat memorable but it could’ve been a lot better with a stronger structure. I was reminded a lot of Licorice Pizza when watching this, which is another episodic coming of age film set in the 70s, yet I think that film works so much better because you have that central relationship which always remains the focus.
5.5/10
Lots of fun! This is how you update the silent film for modern audiences. It has a clear love for the films of that era, but the editing, pacing, sound and humour have a much more contemporary feel to it. The storytelling and characters, which is always the most challenging part with a film like this, are great. It really helps that the actors are all constantly aware of how their exaggerated performances have to be the main building blocks, therefore it has no awkward issues in regards to motivation, tone or characters arcs. I also really enjoyed the creative visual choices, there’s not a single moment where the inherent cheapness works against it. It’s just a very charming film with a lot of memorable gags throughout. Its appeal seem niche, but it has a genuine crowdpleasing quality to it. Come to think of it, maybe Hollywood should try something like this again instead of the meta, self referential comedies we’ve all become tired of.
8/10
Only Verhoeven or De Palma could’ve made this work. A rape comedy should be a disaster by all accounts, yet Verhoeven’s signature somehow compliments the material perfectly. It’s very absurd and pushes to some really interesting places, some of this reminded me of the scenes in Gone Girl where we’re following the Amy character. Not every choice taste is tasteful, but it wouldn’t be a Verhoeven film if it was. Isabelle Huppert is brilliant, such a unique character that could’ve so easily been portrayed as the typical cold, corporate bitch, but she makes something way more fun out of it. I also really enjoyed all the colourful supporting characters. Thematically, I love how it comments on guilt and power through a feminist lens, it defines adds some unique context to Verhoeven’s other work. The only thing that holds me back from loving it are the technical aspects. I really hate the ugly, washed out colour palette and obvious score choices he makes throughout. For something that’s otherwise so non-conformist, it looks and sounds too much like something Hollywood would produce. Still, it’s a really entertaining film that looking back on it might’ve planted the seeds for films like Promising Young Woman and The Invisible Man.
6.5/10
I'm glad Edgar Wright is remaking this, because there are a lot great ideas hidden in this mediocre film. It feels like it's cut from the same cloth as a lot of Verhoeven's work during this time, there's a similar balance of action, sci-fi and satire of 80s excess. Arnold does what you want him to do, the funny cheesy lines are there, the worldbuilding is fine; it checks a lot of boxes. It's just not very memorable, this needed a stronger director, cinematographer and composer. Almost every action sequence suffers from overediting, a lack of wide shots and poorly composed synth & guitar music that fails to amp up the tension. The heavy use of smoke obscures the depth of field and the movie often feels more small scale because of it. It's also not that well paced, taking too long to get to the interesting part. I still like that we have a less serious take on this concept next to Battle Royale, The Hunger Games and Squid Game, but it's almost begging for a remake.
5/10
About as overrated as Stallone's other flagship franchise. Really dumb, contrived set-up. It's impossible to take the conflict of this movie seriously because of the hamfisted execution of the scenes at the police station. You could argue that the writing is so forced because those scenes are presented from Rambo's pov, but if that's the case it makes his character all the harder to root for. On top of that Stallone doesn't do anything make the character more interesting, he remains very one dimensional and flat from beginning to end. The scene in the third act that's meant to complete his character arc has a laughable performance. It was probably a good choice to make him more of a physical presence for the rest of it. Once the cat and mouse chase begins, the movie becomes slightly more entertaining. Love the location and editing of the action, there's some beautiful visuals throughout. I also like how they present the resourceful attitude of the Rambo character, even if they push it too far with all the unbelievable traps. It's during moments like that where I wish this film was more willing to embrace how cheesy everything is. The film also loses me whenever they cut back to the cops and military, just some of the worst acting and dialogue. It's one of those films that's at its best when it's showing quiet tension (e.g. Stallone surviving in the wild or the third act). Everything else I could take or leave. People love to pretend this brings relevant, thoughtful commentary about PTSD to the table, which is pretty disingenuous with films like Taxi Driver and The Deer Hunter already existing before this.
4.5/10
I love how the aesthetic of the posters try to sell this as the ultimate macho action movie, which it very well could be if you take this film at face value. The action, one-liners and score are all excessive in the best possible way. In fact, there’s not a lot about this that feels dated, the presentation holds up really well. Every set piece is extremely tense and memorable, love the design and sound effects of the predator, the visuals have personality; really impressive work by John McTiernan and his team. However, its real genius reveals itself when you look at the writing, which combines the 80s action movie with horror slasher films. Not only is it unique and inspired, but it presents such an intuitive way of commenting on its own theme. As the film goes along, it starts to strip away every element that tricked the dads into seeing this. It leads to a finale that is much more primal, as our protagonist can’t rely on technology, brute strength or any manifestation or toxic masculinity. He’s rewarded when he uses his own wit, which is quite an interesting subversion of regular action movies where character arcs are usually completed when the hero gains new powers or skills. It’s nothing boundary pushing, but I love how they went the extra mile on that, I’d argue it’s part of the reason why it’s aged so well. Overall, I have nothing but praise for this one. The cast is fantastic (Arnold’s obvious shortcomings are made up for with his charisma and physical presence) and the final set piece still remains one of my favorite scenes of all time, even after having seen it too many times.
9/10
A movie that was misunderstood at the time of its release. Its balance of satire with action/sci-fi isn't too dissimilar from Robocop, so it was only a matter of time before it would get reassessed. However, I think Verhoeven is generally biting off more than he can chew here. The bits of satire about the American military are easily its most entertaining asset, it’s sharp and clever enough to carry this project to the finish line. The sci-fi movie that's build around that is fine. I enjoyed some of the attention to detail in the worldbuilding (gender neutral locker rooms) and most of the CGI holds up surprisingly well, it's certainly not as dated as The Phantom Menace. Still, most of the action is on the unimaginative side as the antagonist bugs make for pretty uninteresting cannon fodder. Then there's the love square that's worked in, which doesn't work because of the cheesy acting and weak characters. It's often interpreted as part of the satire, but that feels like a stretch to me as there's no real pay-off or subversion to it. Honestly, cutting out all that soap opera bs would drastically improve the film for me. The same goes for Verhoeven's stylistic stamp in the dialogue, which still reads to me as cringy and awkward from time to time. He's a filmmaker that likes to take massive swings, which I very much respect, but there's a lot that holds me back from loving this.
5.5/10
A half successful attempt at elevating trashy melodrama. It’s filled with great performances, terrific direction, amazing visuals and off kilter sound choices (which sometimes get overdramatic); any memorable moment can be attributed to those aspects. Loved any scene involving food or sex, which seems to be a speciality of Guadagnino. The narrative, however, isn’t all that strong. The corporate takeover subplot is pretty much devoid of any tension, whereas the main cheating/midlife crisis plotline also left me a bit cold (no real attempt to bring any substance to that, it’s not trying to be American Beauty). There’s an interesting turn at the end of act 2, but ultimately everything resolves in a fairly predictable way. It’s alright, nothing great. I’d probably hate it with a lesser director.
5.5/10
