Jordy

VIP

8

Once again, the actors doing impressions/playing against type is the best thing the film has going for it.
Jack Black stole the last movie, this time that award goes to Kevin Hart (first two acts) and Awkwafina (final third).
Having said that, the movie that's build around the impression comedy isn't as good, nor fun, as last time.
The story takes the T2 approach of making a sequel, i.e. switch the roles that everyone plays, and keep the story the same.
Unfortunately, the approach can't save the film from its own poor choices regarding the filmmaking.
The action in this is quite poor, to which some people will undoubtedly respond: well, it's supposed to be cheesy.
To be fair, I probably would've given a pass for it if there was an analog charm to it, but I just refuse to do that for lazy, digitized ugliness.
Moreover, the comedy isn't as sharp and witty as it was before.
Surprisingly, there's a lot of reliance on slapstick, which almost makes it feel like this was made for a younger demographic than the last one.
There's not a single scene that matches Karen Gillan's outstanding seduction scene from the previous film.
Also, there's a lot of expository dialogue that shouldn't be there.
Finally, the ending begs for comparisons to Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom , which makes me go: out of anything you could've done, why on earth would you willingly choose to go there?

4.5/10

Sure, you can watch it without having seen Breaking Bad, but that would be like watching Avengers: Endgame without having seen any of the Marvel movies. You'll get the essence of it, but you don't have a deeper sense about the characters and their motivation, or an understanding of some of the references that are being made. Personally, I really like that it builds on where we left off; it doesn't pander to an audience that isn't willing to invest their time in the show. So I'd advise anyone to watch the show first, mainly because the core of it was undeniably strong. The story and characters were magnificent. El Camino benefits from that. If these weren't the characters we'd know and love from Breaking Bad, this movie wouldn't be nearly as good. As a story, it is a nice epilogue to Breaking Bad, albeit fairly predictable and a bit needless (because Jesse's character doesn't really have an arc throughout this movie). The actors are, of course, great (Aaron Paul and Meth Damon in particular).

The weakest part of the show, to me, has always been the directing. I always found it to be fairly lifeless, particularly in the first two seasons. El Camino is no different. Scenes are often quiet and really drawn out, with shots that are being held for way too long. Some directors, like Alfonso Cuarón or Steven Spielberg, get away with this, but that is only because they constantly keep the camera moving. Some shows, like Mr. Robot, use really interesting angles and colour in order to make the longer shots hold your attention. Don't get me wrong, the show and this movie are definitely far above sit-com level cinematography, but the shots aren't so special that they justify being held for 8-10 seconds. Some people will proclaim it to be a unique and interesting style, but to me it has always been a recipe for bad pacing. And that's very strange when you think about it, because the show and this movie definitely aren't uneventful. Finally, I'll also say that some of the fan service in this movie doesn't work, because it doesn't add anything to the story. For as nice as it was to see Walter White and Jessica Jones again, they really should've been deleted them from the final cut of this movie.

6/10

If you’re just interested in well choreographed and edited action sequences: see it. Also, kudos to convicingly pulling off the Will Smith clone (minus his final scene), something which must’ve been extremely hard to do given that he’s constantly moving around during the action sequences. However, the story of this film feels very paint-by-numbers and uses way too much exposition on top of that. The set-up takes a lot from The Bourne Identity, minus the memory loss. That’s not inherently a bad thing, but this has none of the interesting characterization, pace or grit from a Bourne film on top of that. Stylistically, there’s a glossiness and fakeness to it all. Everything is overlit, it ocassonially looks like characters are standing in front of green screen (which I’m pretty sure they aren’t), and there’s a fluidity to the movement during the action scenes which makes it look like animation. I don’t know how much of that is a result of the special cameras they used, and how much comes from bad CGI/cinematography/lighting, but I do know that not all of the innovation here is also an improvement.

4/10

Ps:
If you’re someone who loves motion smoothing and oversaturated colours on your tv system—> watch it in HFR
If you have taste —> don’t watch it in HFR.

Well, I'll never listen to That's Life by Frank Sinatra in the same way again, that's for sure.

Before I start, there are two groups of people who need to be addressed:
- Regarding the people who are saying that it's too violent, and a movie based on comics shouldn't be like that: please, go back to watching Dora: The Explorer.
- Regarding the people who are calling it a Taxi Driver or King of Comedy rip-off: Is Mr. Robot a Fight Club rip-off? You have to see the difference between ripping something off and taking inspiration + adding your own ideas to it. Also, Taxi Driver is a vigilante story, something which this isn't.

So, most of the praise you heard about this movie I can absolutely get behind. The cinematography and score are without a doubt Oscar worthy. Joaquin Phoenix is front and center, and he absolutely shines. It is a full on character study, and the movie shows everything from the Joker's point of view. It keeps the movie focussed, but it has to be said that there are no other interesting characters to get invested into, something that other character studies don't forget. The pacing is also very well done. It doesn't feel like a slow movie, and the final 20 minutes are something special. To me, however, the first 90 minutes are a lot more interesting. I love the fact that we get to see an in-depth exploration of the causes of social exclusion and what leads to Arthur's downward spiral. Phillips very wisely points to a variety of causes at very different levels of society (elites, government, punks), while not forgetting that some blame also falls into the hands of Arthur himself (e.g. his megalomania). This is a very strong and nuanced message.

And then there's the film's other message. When it comes to a film like this (a protagonist with a downwards spiral), the movie often starts with making you feel sympathetic towards the character. The Wolf of Wallstreet does that. Breaking Bad does that. And Joker also does that. But then there's a point where the character crosses the line, a moment which you can almost pinpoint in this movie, namely the scene where he kills his mom . From that point on, a movie should clearly condemn what he's doing in order to not give out an immoral or wrong message. In The Wolf of Wallstreet, Di Caprio starts to lose everything. In Breaking Bad, Walter White starts to lose everything. Phillips, however, goes out of his way of condemning what his character does. Instead, he plays swelling and upbeat music during the film's darkest moments. Moreover, Joker gets a happy ending , and no other characters have a sincere conversation about the atrocities of what he's doing. In other words, the movie gives off the impression of still being on his side, thereby presenting violence as the answer to this man's problems, and I can totally agree with some of the critics who have a moral problem with that. I understand that they wanted to stay with Arthur's perspective through the end, but this comes at the cost of one of the biggest mistakes a film like this can make. At the same time, one major flaw doesn't make a film bad. I mean, Gone With The Wind is immoral in the sense that it is racist, but is it a bad film? Absolutely not.

7.5/10

As a kid (I was 6 when I saw this for the first time), I still remember telling my dad when we left the cinema back in 2002: “that looked a little bit like Monsters Inc!”. Rewatching it with adult eyes makes me realize that my younger self was onto something, because yes: time has not been kind to this film. Movies from the same year, like The Two Towers or Chamber of Secrets, still hold up pretty well visually, because they didn’t attempt to do anything they knew they couldn’t do at the time. Oh, there are scenes with big spiders and a huge snake in the second Harry Potter book? No problem, we’ll use animatronics and set most of it in darkly lit sets in order to hide the details.

George Lucas, however, was more intent on pushing the technology forward, instead of thinking about how his film would age. As a result, it looks like you’re watching a dated Pixar film. If only it also sounded like one. The acting is absolutely atrocious, as well as unintentionally funny, because the dialogue that’s given to the actors doesn’t sound natural. The narrative is extremely boring, with the romantic subplot being the low point in the entire series. The only real positives in the film that I can think of are Ewan McGregor’s performance and John Williams’ score, and I suppose some of the action looks okay. Other than that, this is really hard to get through.

2.5/10

Whenever people compare this film to episode 4, they tend to talk about the improved visual effects, direction, or Vader’s expanded role. And while all of that is definetely present, this film’s biggest achievements when compared to the original to me have always been the major upgrade in the acting and dialogue. Kershner delivered a movie that isn’t just insanely quotable, but the actors managed to sell every single line of it. No longer do we have to listen to whatever Lucas was telling Fisher to do (“I recognized your foul stench when I was brought on board”), and instead we get some genuinely great chemistry between her and Harrison Ford. Mark Hamill no longer acts like a whiny teenager, which is a nice bonus. And also, the new additions are nothing short of awesome, those being Yoda, Boba Fett and Lando.

People usually refer to this instalment as ‘the dark one’, but at the same time, it’s also the most comedic out of the original 3. Our protagonist learns that the big baddie is his daddy, but at the same time, he makes a handstand while a little green muppet is standing on top of his foot. It sounds like a tonal mess, but it really works. To me, it only loses a few points for some of the really hokey stuff. I know you sort of have to buy it, because it is a silly space movie after all, but some of the designs have just become laughable. It almost doesn’t sound fair to say that to a 40 year old movie, but even some other films from that time period are still as effective today as they were back then (remember, The Shining also came out in 1980).

8.5/10

Let me preface this review by stating that I haven't read the book.
Now, I don't think that that's very important, because it's the job of the director to translate the book in such a way that it works on the big screen, meaning automatically that is should translate in a way that works for people who haven't read the book.
Moreover, a movie should never slavishly copy the book.
In fact, some of the best adaptations have come from directors who only captured the tone and feel of the book (like The Shining).
So don't come at me with the typical "well actually, in the book ...." attitude, because I'm only reviewing the film ;)

Pros:
- The casting director did his/her job exceedingly well, because every cast member in this is good if not great.
- Visuals and cinematography/technical aspects (I very much appreciate the fact that this movie doesn't rely on jump scares).
- Just like with the first film, the scares in this are well thought out and creative, albeit a little silly at times.

Cons:
- Again, just like the first movie, the overabundance of humour kills any sense of mood or creepy atmosphere that I'm supposed to endure. If you're going to cut from a scene where James Ramsone and Bill Hader are having a funny argument, to a scene where someone gets brutally murdered 30 seconds later, it doesn't leave an impact. This director just doesn't shift gears correctly.
- Like two other important WB sequels from recent years (those being Batman V Superman and Fantastic Beasts 2), this is an incoherent movie. In fact, I would argue this movie is actually almost exactly the same as Fantastic Beasts 2 in terms of structure. There's a set-up, a first act, in which we get to meet all of the characters. So far, so good. Then there's a string of long scenes in which everyone is on their own journey. In itself that's not a problem, however, none of those scenes actually build on each other. You could re-arrange every scene in the second act, and it wouldn't change a damn thing. Even more so, you could cut out these 70-80 minutes, and you wouldn't loose anything. Why is that? Because none of it has a purpose, there is no point to it, there is no progression, no ... plot.
- The CGI. The monsters in this look really fake, and some very obvious de-aging techniques have been used. There's a scene in a pharmacy store in which Jack Dylan Grazer's face looks so weird, it almost looks like you're watching a 3D movie where the layers of the image are deliberately different.
- The ending is lame. It reminded me of The Conjuring movies, in which people use the power of yelling religious gibberish in Latin in order to win. This time, however, it's the power of yelling insults. . Also, some of the set-ups in this movie are really obvious, to the point where you just know how some things are going to end up (which they do, of course).

3.5/10