This whole idea of transforming racoons would probably work seamlessly in a Miyazaki film, but with Takahata tone and artistic voice I find it a much harder sell. The absurdist, surrealist elements don’t entirely work together with Takahata’s realistic, depressing style. It also keeps the viewer at a distance by not having a proper main character, which leads to an increased use of expository narration. Still, it’s fairly charming and includes relevant themes about our relationship with the environment, nothing uncommon for Ghibli but still told in a fairly unique way that hits the right emotional notes. Technically fantastic as per usual, maybe the pacing could’ve been tightened a little as it gets slightly repetitive in places.
6/10
People seem to really like this one, I think it’s quite bland and unspecial. The songs are kitschy and annoying, the animation and design are strongly lacking in vision/artistry, the concept and humour feel like a watered down version of Shrek, the voice acting lacks character and there’s generally not a lot about the story and characters that doesn’t come across as run of the mill. Most of it feels like one missed opportunity after the other to me. It could’ve been interesting if they emphasized how dark and messed up the set-up is, and I could see 90s Disney potentially going there, but this plays it very light and safe. It could’ve been interesting if they weaved in a theme about puberty or discovering the real world (like Wonder Woman, for example), but we only get some awkward fish out of water type comedy. It could’ve been interesting in they subverted some of the fairytale tropes like the film it’s clearly inspired by, but this is Disney, the company who sold off Nimona to Netflix for doing just that. In a sense it all feels a little ahead of the curve because it predicted how soulless and overly commercial a lot of Disney movies would become over the next decade. Honestly if this was a bigger commercial hit, I’m certain this would be as popular to hate on as Frozen. Just skip it, there’s no genuine creative spark with this one.
3.5/10
It all feels a little too uninspired. It works just fine as a lighthearted take on ancient mythology, but there are only a couple of elements that really stand out to me. The villain is terrific, such a fun character and it also feels like a lot more time and effort was put into designing and animating the scenes taking place in the underworld. I love the idea of a group of soul singers being our tour guide throughout this story (wish they were in it more), and there’s some decent slapstick and voice acting (Danny DeVito) throughout. However, in terms of story and character there’s not a lot that feels memorable. You need a strong directorial voice to breathe some life into these classic fables, and this just feels lacking. We need some hakuna matata to differentiate The Lion King from Hamlet. With Hercules, the writing never quite stop feeling generic, nor do the character designs, animation quality or weak songs make up for it. I think a lot of these issues would’ve been less distracting if they’d found a way to make the main character more compelling, he’s lacking a personality or motivation that’s worth investing in as a viewer.
5/10
A watered down David Fincher movie, this must've felt so played out by the time it came out. There were a lof of movies about mentally disabled protagonists questioning their reality around the turn of the century, and The Machinist doesn't bring anything new to that subgenre. I didn't quite guess the twist (for the first act I was convinced the main character was secretly in jail, or at the very least something similar to Shutter Island), but that doesn't make the answers I got instead were that much better. You can also really feel the hand of a lesser director in the way it builds tension and mystery. There's something very hokey about the dialogue and construction of scenes, nor do the presentation choices often work in its favor. It's aiming for that sick, depressing Fincher look but due to a lack of contrast and colour the end result often feels closer to a cheap looking 2000s music video. The score doesn't really fit the tone at all, this needed something more grimy and electronic instead of the retro Spielberg/Shyamalan thing it's doing. If all of this sounds like an elaborate way of saying you should rewatch Fight Club instead, then you'd be right. Still, it's not entirely without merit. Bale is excellent, easily one of his boldest performances and most impressive physical transformations. If you can look past the score and dialogue, there are more than a few entertaining scenes (even if all of them feel like reheated Fincher leftovers). I just constantly keep circling back to the same conclusion: I cannot recommend a movie that never manages to carve out a distinct identity for itself. It’s faded from the collective memory over the years and I think there’s a good reason for that.
4/10
The trailer didn't do much for me, but being familiar with the director I knew it was probably going to be more clever than the marketing was letting on. Turns out I was right, Richard Linklater has clearly been studying the works of Erving Goffman and decided to make a fun hitman movie about it. The script keeps it fresh by using its central concept of role playing in a couple of different ways. It's simultaneously a psychological thriller, quirky romance and postmodern comedy. I noticed a lot of different influences (e.g. Burn After Reading, Fargo), but all of the elements here work together to create something that feels cohesive and fresh. For me it checks a lot of boxes a lot of films like this don't hit anymore: the leads have good chemistry, it's patient and doesn't go too crazy right from the start, characters are properly motivated and the fun concept always remains thought provoking. It's main selling point, however, is definitely Glen Powell, who's playing the type of character that I can only imagine is any actor's dream role. Some of his outfits are bordering on the ridiculous, but the performance ultimately makes every character work. Not a huge fan of the perplexing ending, and a little more bold energy could've elevated this beyond that typical Netflix feel (Linklater's naturalistic filming style, editing and score sometimes tip into bland territory here for my taste), but this is probably the best crowdpleaser to come out this summer.
6.5/10
Pretty good portrayal of the mental disability known as the Fregoli delusion, but it could’ve used some more Charlie Kaufman. By his standards this is almost a mundane film, I wanted something slightly more bold and memorable. Still a lot of interesting, unique artistic choices that make this deserving of a recommendation (e.g. the singular male voice feels like a very intuitive choice), but it’s not my favourite project of his. Loved the cinematography, score and awkward tone, however the animation and design of the puppets are a little too off-putting for my taste. It sits between this awkward place of realism and surrealism, which fits with the theme of the film, but I think there are more appealing ways of portraying that visually.
6.5/10
It's whatever. Even in animation, Marvel Studios will find ways to make things look bland and impersonal. I don't care if the look is faithful to the original show, it should look way more detailed and bold, especially when there's money from Marvel Studios behind this project. Some of the parenting themes and horror influences feel very much targeted towards the audience who grew up with this show, but it's still combined with a simplistic plot, bright colours and a lot of campy, melodramatic lines. It's not fun enough for kids and simultaneously too empty/childish for adults. The balancing of all the different characters is pretty well done (it's not just the Wolverine show like a lot of the movies), but I'm very indifferent about the plot. The entire concept of the sentinels was handled with way more depth and care in a film like Days of Future Past, instead this is way more focussed on character drama, which is not as rewarding. It's watchable with nothing terrible in it, but the people praising it to high heavens need to go to nostalgia rehab. It's just another kids show, pump the breaks.
5/10
Basically an Alex van Warmerdam film if he didn't know how to make a movie. It's too on the nose and lacking in subtlety to work as a black comedy/satire, it's too repetitive, surface level and poorly written to work as a drama about internet trolling and it's not over the top enough to work as a horror comedy. It somewhat feels like a product of the Succession era in the sense that every character is various degrees of unlikeable, but this film would be so much more interesting if the main character and daughter were written like sympathetic characters. We should be rooting for the protagonist, that's what makes a genre like this interesting and fun. On top of that it also gets way too stupid at points (e.g. how is she tracking all these people down?; the police aren't noticing the connective tissue between the people being killed?), I feel like the directing and Herbers' acting should've done a much better job at bringing out the absurdity. Technically, it's not very interesting either. The sound mix is actually pretty decent for a Dutch production, but visually it's drab and lacking in personality. A key scene taking place at night looked particularly underlit, this is where you really start to feel its tv budget. There's some decent edits here and there, other times I was left wondering what the filmmaker's trying to communicate. Overall, a pretty major failure that feels written and made by people with a lack of experience.
2/10
I agree with some of the other reviewers, it’s nothing special. Very predictable/formulaic as a romance, and the strong focus on singer-songwriter & folk music didn’t exactly blow me away either. I think it’s unlikely to impress a seasoned listener of this type of music, at least not for the extent that John Carney decides to focus on it. Most of its themes are handled more interestingly in a film like Inside Llewyn Davis, this doesn’t even come close to reaching that level of depth or emotion. Not that it tries to, this clearly wants to be more optimistic and carefree, but I’m kinda left wondering what the big deal is. Still, I appreciate the commitment to authenticity with the acting and filmmaking, even despite some of the camerawork being a little dodgy. Not the worst watch overall, but I think a viewer whose knowledge of this genre doesn’t run that deep will get more out of it.
4/10
Excellent, this is Burton’s best. A perfect combination of his style and 30s Hollywood. They reference Dracula a lot and it’s interesting how the lighting mirrors a lot of of those old Universal monster films. You don’t often see biopics that are directed like genre films, so this immediately stands out. The script is also really engaging, this isn’t another one of those Hollywood stories that’s mostly (or only) enjoyable for other filmmakers. It has fun with itself and doesn’t take itself too seriously, so it’s an entertaining ride from beginning to end. On top of that there’s also room for substance and more challenging emotions, which to me don’t really clash with the jovial tone. Thematically it’s about the creative struggle when paired with societal pressures for being different, it occupies a similar space as the work of an artist like David Bowie (the major difference being the quality of their work, of course). Fantastic characters and performances, everyone nails that stylized acting style. I’d go as far as to say that for everyone in the main cast you could argue its their best performance to date. Fantastic film.
9/10
There are hints of interesting stuff here, but any of those threads are quickly brushed aside to check off the items on Disney's corporate checklist. The end product feels polished, generic and ultimately soulless. It's another victim of the post Bohemian Rhapsody wave of musical biopics that feel like directionless, sanitized celebrations of their respective artist. If harmonics are supposed to be the special ingredient to this group, maybe explain more of how that works technically? What makes Brian Wilson such a special vocal arranger next to his peers? Any specifics on the tension between band members? Any artistic disagreements? This 'definitive look at America's band' provides no real answers to any of these questions. Any time it approaches interesting territory, the filmmakers cut back to make sure it doesn't lose that fluffy, feel good tone. Technically it's fine, but because there's Disney money behind this there's almost no visual creativity. It's very much told like a historical biography found on Wikipedia, intercut with interviews from other artists. Some of these artists to me really highlight the type of demographic this documentary is aimed at. You probably should've put students of their sound in this (e.g. Robin Pecknold and Noah Lennox) instead of Ryan Tedder. All in all, a very forgettable documentary due to a lack of detail, depth and passion. It'll become obsolete the day we receive the real definitive look at America's band.
3.5/10
A documentary attempting to explain the electoral downfall of the Dutch labour party, as explored through interviews with former party leaders. In true leftist fashion, its reflections are exceedingly self-critical, thereby pushing aside a lot of other factors that have contributed over the years. As a story it just feels incomplete and disingenuous to me, there should've been way more focus on the major socioeconomic developments over the past 25 years. This trend isn't contained to The Netherlands, there are broader forces at play here, so the film's conclusion of 'going back to the spirit of the 70s' seems like an inconclusive answer to me. Stylistically, I think it's quite awful. Visually it's mostly a combination of archival footage, period accurate needle drops and talking heads, pretty uninspired/forgettable stuff. On top of that I think the narration leans towards the cringeworthy side, although I could see the activist/angry tone resonating with those who align themselves with this party. Maybe my own instincts and tastes are just slightly too different. For example it tries to end on this hopeful, uplifting note, which to me comes across as awkward and preachy, but I could see how someone could find it inspiring. I hope for this party it does.
3/10
If it wasn't for its fusion of scripted drama & documentary, I'd call this a generic crime/heist film. The approach opens up a few interesting artistic possibilities, but honestly I think the style starts to work against it after a while. The interviews are mainly used to deliver lazy exposition, and the creative way that it incorporates the unreliable narrator, while fun once, doesn't add much as a storytelling device. The characters are really annoying dumbasses, which can sometimes work cinematically, but here the performances and dialogue don't elevate it. The filmmaking and interviews leave the impression that we're meant to be on the side of these characters, which is not at all the case. They aren't interesting people, their motivation is almost non-existent and the sequence of events doesn't exactly scream 'narrative feature' to me. Near the end it takes a turn by becoming more reflective and looking at the emotional repercussions, but by that time it's too little too late. For me it's really hard to feel the level of empathy for these people the film expects me to. I was more invested in the cinematography and editing, those are the aspects that keep this film watchable. The colour grading and camerawork are quite impressive, and I loved the smooth scene transitions that break up the flow between the the two different formats. So, I see a very talented filmmaker here, but hopefully he can find a more interesting subject next time around.
4/10
It's more Solo: A Star Wars Story than it is Better Call Saul. This is an unnecessary, drawn-out prequel that's more story driven compared to Fury Road. From my perspective, this emphasis is a mistake for a franchise which has never used story as its major selling point. I have to ask: what does this really add to Furiosa as a character, the feminist themes of Fury Road or the revenge genre? The answer: not a whole lot. You probably already pieced most of this backstory together in the abstract if you paid attention during Fury Road. Because of that, Furiosa quickly becomes predictable and stale, especially with the new characters not being terribly interesting. I loved Hemsworth's zany performance (great voice work), but on the page there's not much there. Tom Burke turns in a really flat performance as the underdeveloped love interest this story didn't need. Anya Taylor-Joy is fine in this role, but she isn't given a lot to do. For the first two chapters, Miller makes a conscious effort to hold back with the more operatic set pieces, instead focussing on Furiosa's childhood with a younger actress. It's not the worst thing ever, but I never felt like the film came off the ground. The film picks up considerably during the war rig attack early on during the third chapter. It's an impressive scene, although it does look considerably more plastic than all the action in Fury Road. Sure, it's still way more artistically accomplished than everything else you're going to see this summer, but visually it's a noticeable downgrade. Still, from that point on, the film becomes more entertaining and set piece driven until the credits. None of it feels particularly innovative or original, but George Miller's vision for these movies remains unmatched. The camerawork, worldbuilding and atmosphere are great, although as mentioned before the lighting and CGI could use improvement. Combined with the weak story and character work it never quite manages to turn itself into something I'd recommend, but as the only action tentpole made for adults this summer, maybe consider supporting it.
5/10
As a piece of provocative entertainment, it's not the worst thing ever. It does have a style and personality, often using dark humor and smug narration to its benefit. However, this thing quickly starts to break down once you start to look at the ideas presented within. I don't disagree with the identified problem, but it's not that hard to pick up on all the fallacies, gaps in logic and emotional manipulation found in Moore's argumentation. He presents a severe lack of evidence to back up his claims, relying on the power of cinema to make his points for him (e.g. dramatic music; out of context clips to lazily frame Republicans as cartoonishly evil). There are still interesting tidbits of info here and there (such as the sections focussing on the military and military-industrial complex), but the unbalanced argumentation and factual errors make the end product come across as propaganda. Not recommended.
4/10
A very thorough explanation of institutional racism and the prison-industrial complex. There are a few topics where it could’ve gone more in depth (e.g. why does the black community often fall victim to using violence and crack cocaine?), but the picture that’s painted here feels pretty authentic and complete. The goal is to shock and infuriate, which are two emotions that are hard not to feel when watching this. The main problem is that it works better as a lecture than a piece of art. It’s way too preachy and eager to hold the hand of the viewer, at least for my taste. I generally prefer art with more subtlety or room for interpretation, and DuVernay uses every opportunity to tell you what to think through her editing style. Near the end it briefly turns into a Hillary Clinton endorsement ad, which kinda made my eyes roll. I also think it could’ve been more artistically creative, because besides the musical interludes there’s not a lot that stands out about the presentation. Nevertheless, I’d still recommend this based on substance alone, it seems like a very useful document for any class about modern history in particular.
6.5/10
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 (and 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
