I feel like a lot of this script served as a blueprint for The Bourne Identity and The Matrix, but this is generally a lot cheesier than both those films. Its biggest selling point is easily the worldbuilding, all that stuff is very imaginative. The way it starts, though, is a bit clunky. The first act is riddled with way too much exposition (I get that it’s a complicated set up, but this could’ve been a lot more visual), bad acting and a lot of convenience. The movie gets a lot better once we actually get to Mars. The cinematography is pretty great, a lot of the effects hold up and I like the way the story unfolds. Lots of fun scenes, lots of great silly comedy and one liners, but the script is still lacking in places. I admire Verhoeven’s attempt at subtext, but it’s not as elegantly woven into the script as it was with Robocop. Moreover, the script doesn’t give us a good character besides Quaid, the villains and female characters aren’t interesting or developed in the slightest. What elevates the movie instead are its visuals, action scenes and propulsive energy. It’s an entertaining film, but I’m a little surprised it’s as well remembered with all the action classics that came out around the same time.
6.5/10
I respect it as an experience, but it’s lacking that deeper layer that I want out of a movie like this.
Also, for a movie this unconventional, I found it oddly predictable at points.
Still, this is too well crafted (terrific sound, great cinematography), acted and written to neglect.
It’s an effective nightmare of a film, one that’s also quite funny at points, but the subtext is too broad and unspecific for me.
6.5/10
This movie slaps during the action sequences, those scenes are very impressive and filled with great stuntwork. The rest of the movie is pretty boilerplate, the story and characters are about as stock and predictable as it gets. Now, fortunately most scenes are quite funny, so it still manages to entertain, even if I don’t think it does slapstick as well as The Naked Gun. The directing and acting are pretty bad and stiff. They use some very odd lenses for the simplest of shots, and I don’t know what’s going on with some of the sound editing here. Also, I absolutely hate the use of music, way too much handholding for the audience. It’s kind of a fastfood version of an 80s action movie, a proto Fast and Furious, if you will. If you’re looking for something that scratches that itch, this does so pretty decently.
5.5/10
It’s trashy and wild, but in a good way. It’d be really easy to make a film like this super obvious and lowbrow, but the movie is in good hands with Sean Baker at the helm.
The lo-fi aesthetic and music complement the vibe quite nicely (though I thought the mix a little too loud and abrasive at points).
It’s really funny, most of the jokes are sharp and the lead actresses are great. Not all the bits landed or felt equally as interesting for me, for example the first half feels a little disjointed and I didn’t care that much about the subplot with the taxi driver.
It does really show Sean Baker’s strengths as a filmmaker though, none of the characters are judged in obvious ways he shows compassion for all of them, even if they’re all flawed.
6.5/10
It’s ok, I don’t understand why they focussed so much on trying to make this a mature drama when the show stars Frank Grillo and Nick Jonas.
They pull it off just fine, but I don’t think it plays to its potential strengths, because I think it’d be much more memorable if it focussed on the physicality instead.
The drama we have here is fine: acting is ok, writing is ok, filmmaking is fine. It never drops the ball, nor is it ever outstanding. They often play it safe, and in many ways the music perfectly encapsulates what the show is: very plain, straightforward garage- and blues rock. Sometimes you're in the mood for that, but I won't rush out to recommend it to anyone either.
It does have a tendency to stretch its own story a little thin; for example there’s no reason for season two to be 20 episodes long.
Does this show deserve a little more love and attention? Probably.
Am I surprised it got lost in the shuffle with the huge amount of high quality television that we got in the 2010s? No.
It’s cinema in it’s purest form.
Beautiful sound design and soundtrack, the colours are what make the animation pop (though there are small bits of this movie that look a little too basic), the movie has a very soothing vibe.
When it comes to depth in the story and character development, you have to piece a lot of that stuff together yourself. It doesn’t have any dialogue, so the movie expects you're intelligent enough to make certain connections by yourself. It’s nothing mindblowing, but it certainly has a few layers below the surface.
Overall, I thought it was quite well done, it clearly has a lot of heart.
7.5/10
It’s amazing how it manages to squeeze so much emotion and heart out of its story, especially with a runtime that’s a little over an hour.
I love the characters, animation and voice acting, the characters are all surprisingly well defined, and it tugs at your heartstrings in all the right ways.
It’s more dramatic than your usual Pixar movie, but it hits those same mature notes and messages that the best of their movies also incorporate.
No real complaints for me. I would’ve welcomed a longer runtime, but this version is also pretty much flawless.
9/10
It's fratty and a little plebby, but it has its moments.
The concept's fun and the acting is pretty solid (Ken Jeong basically steals this whole movie), but it makes so many choices that ensured this thing would have little to no shelve life. The music sounds horribly dated now (nostalgic perhaps, but this specific kind of bling era/club hiphop doesn't hold up), they put little to no effort into the filmmaking, a lot of the comedy is dumb (the bad kind) and again, dated. In other words, it's a studio comedy meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator. However, you could do a lot worse within that specific genre, because this does have quite a few memorable scenes.
5/10
Masterfully directed, shot and acted, but underwritten. These characters aren’t much deeper than your usual, commercial horror fare protagonists (they fit a lot of those same stereotypes, in fact), and there’s not a story beat you can’t predict. It plays with some interesting ideas in its subtext, but generally I think it should’ve taken a lot more risk.
6/10
Kinda lives in that awkward space where it’s too scary to be the fun entertaining ride this wants to be, while simultaneously being too jovial to be actually scary. It just feels so sanitized and studio friendly, and it didn’t do much for me emotionally as a result (besides the opening scene). However, I can’t deny that the execution is pretty good.
This is a hot mess, it’s unfortunate to see a talented director fly off the rails so quickly. Still, good on Olivia for getting WB to finance this original project, it’s very fun to look at (lots of production value, great costumes, the cinematography pops). Florence Pugh is fantastic, all the other performances range from decent (Chris Pine) to trash (Mr Styles, pack your bags). It really falls apart with the writing though. The set-ups of this mystery are incredibly on the nose and obvious (especially if you’ve seen the late 90s films this film is so clearly ripping off), it’s all to the point where an attentive viewer will know beat for beat how this is going to play out. So, not only is it a little too dumb to be engaging, but its attempts at commenting about the patriarchy ring very hollow, unspecific, and again, on the nose. Once the mysteries are ‘revealed’, the movie completely loses its direction and becomes unintentionally hilarious, leaving a lot of loose ends in the process. It’s abundantly clear to me that this is not playing to Olivia Wilde’s strengths, I hope she goes back to making smaller, more intimate films.
4/10
More likely to reasonate with scientific and mathematical minds, even though its core concept is fairly straight forward: people obsessed with explaining the world by only using numbers, patterns and scientific rationale are likely to turn paranoid and crazy.
Structurally, it’s not too dissimilar from Requiem for a Dream, though this is generally a lot more bold and abstract (they even used similar shots when people start to go crazy).
I absolutely love the filmmaking, editing and especially the music in this, very strong ‘90s vibes coming through. The black and white also adds a lot of atmosphere.
The only problem is that the acting can be a bit overdone at times, but it’s very memorable and well done besides that.
8.5/10
A movie with a clear message: the unrealistic societal expectations that are put on women in highly competitive positions makes them an easy target of sexual predators, mental health issues, abuse and other forms of malicious intent.
It’s a very well done piece, the characters and acting are excellent, and the music is great too.
I thought the horror element was a little half baked in the first two acts (it only gets scary very sporadically, and I could’ve done without the jump scares), but it’s all just build up for the phenomenal third act. Regardless, the drama is strong enough to keep you engaged for the first hour.
My only complaint is that the directing and visuals are a bit average at times, which is odd because that’s usually one of Aronofsky’s strengths.
8/10
This is pretty good, but some of the camerawork in the first half can be a bit pedestrian and bland.
You can also very clearly see how it influenced films like Hereditary with the way that it approaches themes like mental health.
Powerful acting, well thought out drama and scares, it's a quality piece of horror filmmaking.
I did notice the kid was on the edge of breaking character at times, probably should've used a take where he isn't smiling accidentally (still way above average for a child performance).
7.5/10
Some movies age well, and some don’t. This is the latter. I know it defined a generation and all of that, but it kinda fails with the basics if you ask me. It looks and sounds nice, but the characters, themes and story are boring and flat. It’s hard to believe that a lot of Hitchcock’s classics were made before this, because some of the editing and directing choices are so amateurish. It’s very concerned with being a product of its time, and that’s fine, but it was always going to become dated because of that. This is essentially to boomers what American Pie and Superbad are to millenials. It captures a specific feeling that clicks with the zeitgeist of its time, and there’s not a lot else for people who didn’t grow up in the same cultural time period to hang on to.
4.5/10
The cast of this is insane. It also proves again that Gillian Flynn is an excellent writer, the story has quite a unique take on the usual crime thriller. However, as already mentioned by other people, this probably would’ve been better as an HBO miniseries, it would allow for its story and mosaic of characters to breathe a lot more. The version we have here can be quite the challenge to keep up with, and I really wouldn’t have minded if it were longer and more fleshed out (I really don’t get the complaints about it being boring). Still, this has plenty of memorable moments and it gets to the heart of some important socioeconomic issues. It’s more of a crime drama than a heist film, so don’t expect a lot of fireworks. McQueen knows how to use the camera as a tool to communicate visually, so some important cues aren’t spoonfed through dialogue. His biggest achievement as a director with this is probably to draw a good performance out of Michelle Rodriguez. The rest of the cast is also excellent, lots of great emotional scenes where some of them get to show off their chops. Music’s pretty good, there’s one major twist where I like how the reveal is so understated. Overall, I think it’s pretty good, but it was a little overhyped by critics.
7.5/10
Haven’t seen this one in forever, though I always liked it growing up. I think it’s easily one of Dreamworks’ best, the way it’s conceived is kinda genius because Disney could never make this. The way it subverts the tropes of Disney fairytales and gets a little edgy with them is great. It’s also not as predictable as most of Dreamworks’ other films because of that. The three main characters are iconic, really well defined and interesting. It’s still funny to this day, there are jokes in this for all ages. Some of the subtle meta references are fantastic, I love the shot that’s a clear nod to The Matrix. The animation is a little dated at this point, but because there’s clear artistry and personality in the visuals, it’s still just as watchable. The messaging is also quite unique for a kids movie: it very much is a celebration of weirdos/outsiders. Because of that, I’m not a fan of the radiorock soundtrack, despite it being a massive meme machine (the Eels song is pretty cool though). I also think the way the movie starts is a little clunky, but it finds its footing once Shrek and donkey are send on their mission.
8/10
Pretty good, Daniel Craig probably enjoyed himself immensely making it. I kinda wish it had gotten more recognition from the academy, because while it is a genre picture, it’s also subversive and genre bending with plenty of substance to be found. The final shot kinda says it all if you ask me, love this movie’s take on the idea of entitlement. The acting is fantastic across the board, with Ana de Armas, Daniel Craig, Chris Evans and Toni Collette being the clear standouts. The filmmaking is also excellent, great cinematography with plenty of good camera movement and blocking. The mysteries are very well executed, the clues are subtle and clever. Some great quotables as well. I have some problems with the tonal balancing, however. It can occasionally get a little too dark for its own good, especially for a movie that has Daniel Craig doing a really hammy accent.
7.5/10
A little better than the first one. Again, the plot’s super basic and there’s not a beat you can’t predict, but there’s enough visual creativity and wit to make up for that. The set pieces are improved, the camerawork is smoother and they wisely dialed back the slapstick. It’s surprisingly mellow at times, you can defintely feel the Charlie Kaufman influence next to the other two. These movies really know how to use colour, especially the use of red is very striking, particularly in the third act. The villain is also much more memorable, I love the design of the peacock, and him being voiced by Gary Oldman is great (even though he lacks a proper motivation). So it fixes most of the problems I had with the first one, even though it lacks the risk taking and emotional substance that would elevate it beyond being just pretty decent.
6.5/10
You know, I appreciate these films. They never reach the heights of the Toy Story trilogy, but it’s certainly not the swamp of the Despicable Me or Ice Age movies either. In fact, this very much feels like a quintessential Dreamworks movie: solid entertainment, but not super boundary pushing or ambitious either. The best thing it has going for it are the characters and animation. It’s filled with plenty of great, colourful characters (none of whom are as iconic as the ones from Shrek, but still very well defined) and the animation is creative and fun. I love the use of colour and contrast, it’s punchy and interesting, although never as awe inspiring as a Pixar movie. The coolest bit of animation is in the first scene, I kinda wish they’d stuck with that style for the rest of the movie. Now, the biggest flaw with this one clearly lies with the story. It’s very conventional, and you pretty much know exactly how everything will play out after the first couple of scenes (which it does). I also think there’s an overreliance on slapstick (yes, I get that clumsiness is built into Po’s character, but they still overuse it). I wish there were more regular jokes, though I certainly laughed. Some of the set pieces are clear highlights throughout the film (tournament, bridge fight, training montage), but the third act is a little underwhelming. Part of that is due to the villain being pretty boring, but it also gets way too goofy for its own good.
6/10
The definition of trying way too hard. It’s very desperate to get a reaction out of you, and while it succeeded, it definitely wasn’t earned. Picture the shock value and excess of Requiem for a Dream or Pusher, except cheap. Picture the storytelling format of Memento, except its pointless to the story. Picture the long takes you often find in the films from Cuaron, Scorsese or Inarritu, except with execution that leaves a lot to be desired. The first third looks like trash if you ask me, it’s not even defensible as interesting, artistic handheld. If anything, it looks like a one take version of those bad shaky cam action movies that were popular in the 2000s. It’s mildly effective as a mood piece, sure, but that’s where the praise ends as far as I’m concerned. I’m convinced the violence and disturbing content will be too challenging for some people, but I don’t have much of a problem with that in concept. I do, however, have a problem with it being mostly empty and vapid; the characters are uninteresting, the plot’s pretty barebones, nor is the acting all that impressive. There’s some interesting subtext (you can see it as a statement against unchecked male lust and the pointlessness of revenge), but there are still so many films that comment on these topics in a more interesting way and without the edgelord tendencies.
3.5/10
I get why the book is considered to be a classic, but this is a flawed adaptation.
The acting can really be wonky at points (Gregory Peck and Brock Peters excluded, both of whom are excellent), especially when you compare it to other classics from the ‘60s.
I also don’t think the set-up in the first hour needed to be that elaborate.
It’s almost to the point where all of the meat of the story is given to the second half.
Still, that second hour is so good, it makes up for a lot of the shortcomings.
7/10
Feels like the missing link between Hitchcock and those conspiracy thrillers from the 90s/00s (Enemy of the State, Bourne trilogy).
I think the filmmaking in this has aged incredibly well, the use of visuals and sound are still stylish to this day.
Performances are great, the plot’s original and interesting, well written characters, lots of tension that all culminates in a great third act.
My main problem is that there is way too much convenience in it.
The writing’s not very tight and filled with plot holes at just about every turn (yes, I know that term gets misused by most people, but it’s kinda undeniable with this film).
7.5/10
I like a lot of the filmmaking here, as well as the music. Ellen Burstyn is phenomenal in it, and it’s very good at making you reconsider the way you view addicts. The problem to me is that it feels repetitive, and you know exactly how this is going to play out after the first act. Maybe not to the intensity that it does, but I kinda knew all of its tricks a little too soon. Could've used more subtlety and not nearly as engaging as Aronofsky's previous film.
7/10
This operates in the same ballpark as early Tarantino and Ritchie. I’m generally not the biggest fan of those films. Tarantino as a filmmaker in his early days is pretty uninteresting me, with lots of scenes that drag on for way longer than they should. Ritchie’s movies, on the other hand, lack wit and suffer from frantic pacing. But this sort of gets everything right. Its biggest issue is that it doesn’t really deliver on the promise of its title; most of the movie is about four psychopaths. If that’s my biggest complaint though, you’re doing basically everything right. This movie looks amazing, the acting is fantastic, the comedy hits, lots of memorable scenes, great technical craft; it’s unfortunately really overlooked nowadays.
8.5/10
You have to be on its wavelength before you start to appreciate it.
I wasn’t quite sure about it during the first 30 minutes, but it got funnier and better as it went along.
The music and editing can seem annoying at first, but it falls into place once you get to know the main character.
I kinda hate Sandler for the fact that he’s capable of this, or stuff like Uncut Gems, but instead chooses to sell out and make pleb films most of the time.
Technically it’s perfect of course, it’s PTA we’re talking about.
It didn’t quite blow me away as some of his other films, it lacks the depth for that, but it’s still very good.
There’s a quirk, charm and energy to it that kept me engaged from beginning to end.
7.5/10
Was this directed by PTA or Scorsese? Those long, sweeping tracking shots, the dadrock montages, the themes about excess and the dark side of excess; most of this is a dead ringer for a Scorsese film. At first I thought some of the stuff relating to the side characters felt a little too disconnected from the main plot, but at some point you realize it all feeds the main theme of the film. Love the soundtrack, the acting is very good (probably still Mark Wahlberg’s best), so many memorable scenes, characters and lines (love some of its dark comedy) and excellent cinematography/directing. If you ask me, he was quite far ahead of Tarantino as a director at this point in his career. I do have some minor problems with the editing and tone, which can be a little sloppy at times. It’s also a little predictable, it doesn’t throw that many surprising curveballs at you. Given what PTA would go on to do, this is fairly straightforward and not nearly as complex as some of hit later work, but I still thought it was great regardless.
8/10
This is a weird one; you can sense Adam McKay’s stamp in the deeper themes about sexism and objectification boiling under the surface. However, the comedy he throws on top of that is so lowbrow and silly that it barely feels like the Adam McKay we know today. I found the shtick of the four main actors/characters to be incredibly annoying (and also pretty creepy given the societal advancements that have happened since the release of this film), which would be fine if it was intended to be annoying, but I’m pretty sure there’s meant to be a goofy charm and endearing quality to them. It’s aged kinda poorly, not a fan.
3/10
Also, what’s going with the sound mixing and panning in this film? It’s really awful, this film is in desperate need of a remaster.
I tend to dislike a lot of time loop movies, simply because most of them feel repetitive and low stakes to me. They found a clever way around that problem with this film, it’s thrilling and interesting from beginning to end. The problem is that it kinda starts to cheat with its own rules in the third act, which is a bummer. The characters are fine but could’ve been a lot deeper, as the emotional pay-offs in the third act don’t hit as hard as the film thinks they do (it can even get a little sappy). Still, good cinematography, decent score (which sounds very, very Michael Giacchino-ish, but apparently it’s not him), occasionally funny, well acted and it moves along quite nicely.
6.5/10
This is decent, it checks all the boxes you want out of your typical awards contender. It’s way too predictable for its own good though, the set-ups in the first act are so on the nose that you know beat for beat how this is going to play out. Also, while the movie is competent visually and sonically, it’s also a bit by the numbers. There’s not really an interesting artistic touch at any point, the presentation isn’t super memorable besides those occasional interview inserts. I also wish it would’ve gone a little more in depth about the Watergate scandal, it’s very much kept on the side with one of the key developments in the story being skimmed through as a montage. Still, the main two characters are very interesting, and the acting and story are too well done to neglect.
6/10
