A male power fantasy that somehow manages to be even more immature than James Bond.
It’s also quite dated and creepy at points, and this is coming from someone who has no problem with defending Entourage.
Maybe it’s because that show has a little more to offer in general, but I found this to be all surface level and shallow.
It’s funny, when you break the elements of this film down on the page, it reads like a trashy B-film.
In reality it’s anything but that; this is essentially what you’d get if you’d let Nicolas Winding Refn direct a script that was written for David Cronenberg.
The results are great, the sound and visuals are absolutely incredible.
It’s also very good at building suspense, often accompanied by great acting and editing.
The story is fairly straightforward and grounded with lots of interesting layers about sexuality, gender roles and family.
Because of that, the whole ‘sex with a car’ and pregnancy/birth stuff feels a little tacked on and pretentious to me. I’d buy that in a surrealist and abstract film, but it isn’t trying to be that kind of film for the most part, nor are those aspects meant to be just symbolic. You could have that scene just play out with a man, and it wouldn’t make much of a difference. I don’t know, I just thought it was a bit laughable and up its own ass as is.
The rest of it is really solid.
7.5/10
It’s very trippy and eccentric, but nothing that’s too abstract or inaccessible for the average film viewer.
This is probably Terry Gilliam’s most plot driven work, and he succeeds very well in creating a compelling narrative with plenty of plot twists (some of which can be easily predicted if you’re familiar with the classic time travel tropes), memorable characters and some sharp subtext. Without spoiling too much, I’ll just say that the film was 25 years ahead of its time in many ways.
Brad Pitt plays proto Tyler Durden, he’s probably the biggest standout of the cast, although Bruce Willis and Madeleine Stone are also pretty great.
The music’s catchy and memorable, the visuals have a distinct style and the camerawork heightens a lot of the trippy nature of the film. Not all the shots have aged that well though, some of the lighting and compositions can look a bit dated compared to other films from around that time. There’s also some very noticeable ADR in it, as well as cartoony sound effects.
7.5/10
I feel like this is what would happen if you'd let Spike Jonze and David Fincher direct a show that was created by Damon Lindelof and Charlie Kaufman.
Imagine my surprise when I found out that most of this was directed by Derek Zoolander.
Absolutely terrific show. Great attention to detail, it looks cinematic from the first to the last frame, perfectly acted (it's a very good showcase for Adam Scott in particular), interesting storyline with great dialogue and layers upon layers of subtext, memorable score and good editing.
My only complaint is that there are a few too many conveniences in it, such as how the book ends up with Mark's innie, or how Mark obtains the card for the security room .
Those small issues aside, I loved it.
Here's hoping it sticks the landing and doesn't turn into another Lost.
9/10
One of my favourites from Bong Joon Ho.
Love the concept, it might seem a little cliche or like Marxism from teenagers, but it’s actually more interesting than being just another the rich vs the poor story. It distinguishes itself from Parasite by incorporating meritocracy as a theme, which is well done and an interesting layer of subtext. I just wish there were more intelligent action films like this.
All the performances are terrific, it’s probably a career best performance from Chris Evans.
The sets are memorable, the action’s well executed and carries a lot of punch, visuals and music are spectacular, pacing’s pretty tight and it’s not afraid to take artistic risks.
My only problem, as with a lot of Bong Joon Ho’s work, is some minor tonal whiplash. It can get a little too cartoony at times given how serious the rest of the movie is. Toning down Tilda Swinton’s performance would’ve gone a long way in that regard, or just cutting the scene with Alison Pill entirely.
8.5/10
The acting in this is phenomenal, and the writing’s pretty well done too.
Jordan’s balancing horror, drama and comedy in a way that’s never jarring.
I like its social commentary, and these characters are generally very interesting.
My big problem is that I was a little bit too far ahead of the movie at times, you have a pretty good understanding of the motivations and conflict after the big party scene if you can read between the lines. It made some of the exposition later on unnecessary to me, little bit of dumbing down going on there.
I also could’ve done without the brain replacement twist, it’s maybe a little too silly for its own good (kinda made me go: oh I didn’t realize we were that far into sci-fi territory with this) and unnecessary for a film that already has hypnosis as a building block for the plot.
Nevertheless, it’s really well directed and shot, exceptional stuff for a first feature film.
8/10
What if Entourage was a meta mystery?
It took me a while to get a feel for the tone of this one.
I get that this is not meant to be taken all that seriously, but I still found some of the dialogue and acting a little awkward.
For example, Vincent D'Onofrio gives a genuinely bad performance, I don't know what Altman was aiming at with that stuff.
It's still an engaging film though, lots of meta commentary on the film industry, and it's filled with some great camerawork (I love the opening shot).
The two main characters are interesting, and it does go in directions I didn't expect.
6.5/10
Pixar really ripped this one off with Luca, didn’t they? Good characters, great and colourful animation, decent message and story (a little obvious and broad, but ok), memorable soundtrack. I just don’t get all of Miyazaki’s artistic choices, at times it feels like weird for the sake of being weird to me. Why is the mother driving like an imbecile? Why is Ponyo’s fish design like that, why doesn’t she just look like a fish? It’s an uplifting and memorable film, but not even close to one of Ghibli’s best.
7/10
Great, it’s amazing that it even exists in the first place. Really good satire with strong dramatic and heartwarming undertones; a tricky tonal balance that Waititi pulls off very well. Also a very relevant message about gaining emotional maturity and learning the complexities of the world, which is something that unfortunately still needs to be passed on to even a lot of adults. The actors all did a great job, everyone gives very likeable performances. Some are very cartoony (Rebel Wilson, Sam Rockwell, Taika himself), but it works in context. Visually Waititi seems to be pulling from Wes Anderson here. An obvious point of reference appears to be Moonrise Kingdom, but there is also a lot of dead center framing. It doesn’t quite have the storybook feel op Wes’ films, but it’s still very well shot (really like the look and feel of the city) and there are many memorable visual moments. I love the music and how it’s incorporated, especially during the scenes where Jojo and Scarlett Johansson are biking through the city. Most of the comedy is very well done, though there are a few minor misses for me. Its biggest problem is just how predictable it is. For as bold and risky as this is as a piece of cinema, the set-ups are a little too on the nose. You know exactly where every character is going to end up by the time the credits roll, and it does so without many surprises along the way. That’s really my only major flaw, though. Pretty easily recommended.
7.5/10
An homage to many different ‘80s movies and directors, which seems like a fun idea in concept, but the end results are poorly written and executed. So much of this is filled with movie logic, clichés, very obvious set-ups, contrivances and conveniences at just about every turn. It’s really just dumb schlock that takes itself way too seriously for its own good (except for one scene with the school principal, where they actually do hit the right tone). Even the acting is pretty mediocre for the most part, and the lack of subtlety in Dan Stevens’ performance made the big plot twist very predictable. It would be so much better if his performance had the same kind of ambiguity as Kelvin Harrison Jr. in the movie Luce. The directing is nothing special for the most part and the action scenes aren’t all that impressive either. The only thing I’m going to remember from this is the soundtrack, which is excellent.
3.5/10
It’s good, the primary selling points are the characters and dialogue.
The plot takes a backseat and is pretty forgettable, but the banter and comedy are generally very well done and memorable.
I love that the action is small scaled and not overblown, you can easily follow what’s going on.
Fun soundtrack, great performances by Ryan, Russell and Angourie Rice, love the setting and period detail in the sets and there’s a good sense of pacing.
My biggest problem with this is generally the filmmaking. It can look a bit flat, and way too much of it is shot in boring close ups and medium shots, which makes the film a little more forgettable than it probably should be.
There are also some minor problems with the logic, but no dealbreakers.
7/10
David Fincher was not the right director for this material. I love the attempt, but he plays it way too straight and serious with the tone here. You already know that you’re not watching the tightest and most logical thing during the first 110 minutes (again, it’s clearly schlock), but then it really falls apart with the final ten minutes, which are hilariously stupid and it retroactively makes the entire movie a lot dumber. It fits comfortably with some classic 90s conventions (most specifically the your reality is fake/being controlled trope, as popularized by Fight Club, The Sixth Sense, The Matrix and The Truman Show ), but I think there’s a good reason why this film isn’t remembered as much. Still, I find it an oddly intriguing film. It’s very good at building tension, which is a common thing with most Fincher films, but this one has an absurdity to it that makes it stand out in his filmography. Great characters, very good performances (especially Sean Penn and Michael Douglas), nice memorable piano riff, fantastic cinematography (love the visuals of his mansion when it’s filled with graffiti) and editing. It’s very well made, but this just wasn’t the right film for Fincher’s storytelling sensibilities.
6.5/10
Probably Nolan’s most technically impressive, and the performances are pretty great.
Terrific work by Hans Zimmer and Hoyte van Hoytema as well.
Some of the exposition is a bit poorly done (Cooper doesn’t know how a worm hole works when they’re already in space?), but the bigger problem is that it turns into a Spielberg film in the third act.
The movie suddenly stops being scientific and becomes a whimsical fantasy, which feels like a cheat. It really should’ve ended about 15 minutes earlier than it did.
It doesn’t ruin the film, but it’s a big stain on what could’ve been one of Nolan’s best.
8/10
The plot’s a little loose with this one, but that’s completely fine.
It’s mostly just a collection of very entertaining scenes, the story itself didn’t move me that much, though it’s an interesting spin on history.
Pitt and DiCaprio are perfect, the writing’s funny and witty (great characters), cinematography is very lush (love the attention to detail in the sets) and of course flawless music selection. Feels like Tarantino’s most mature film in many ways.
It does require a bit of homework though: it’s probably more fulfilling if you know beforehand who Sharon Tate and Charles Manson are. The movie might seem to lack a purpose if you’re unaware of them.
As per usual with Tarantino, some scenes are too long for their own good, would've been a lot better if the first two acts were shortened, and some of the moments from the voice over were included instead.
Also, the stuff with Margot Robbie feels a little tacked on. I get why she’s in there, but she has such little impact on most of this film. You can remove her scenes from the first two acts and the film would still make sense, and she’s in it quite a lot.
7/10
Undoubtedly Wes’ most political film, it’s very much a product of the Trump years.
It’s very good, though it could’ve been a little more bold as a metaphor.
I don’t think it says much more than don’t believe the propaganda that’s spread about the disadvantaged people of society , which seems like a very agreeable if you’re at least a little informed. I do like some of the other commentary in regards to corporatism and individuality though.
There were also a few minor parts where I started to get bored, but still: every shot is perfectly framed, the animation is gorgeous, the music’s outstanding and memorable, Wes’ trademark quirkiness is in there and makes the film very unpredictable, very good characters (especially the one voiced by Bryan Cranston), solid story and a heartwarming emotional core.
7.5/10
Very charming, funny and fun. The directing, cinematography, music selection and art direction are of course perfect.
Acting is great for the most part, didn’t quite buy the romance though (but that’s super hard to pull off with child actors, and the writing’s still great).
I also don’t think it’s as memorable as some of his other films, but still very impressive.
7.5/10
This thing has no business being this good. It has so many good characters, there are about 4-5 scene stealers in this movie. The script is consistently funny (thank god for the R-rating), occasionally bordering on being cheap and trashy, but it’s mostly clever. There’s a little too much handholding for my liking, but the amount of exposition is overall tolerable. The action is competently handled by Feig, even though he should’ve dialed back on the amount of slowmo. The acting is way above average for the kind of film that it is, even Melissa McCarthy is quite good in this. I just wish the craft was a bit better. The cinematography is by no means bad, but a lot of scenes are just a bunch of close-ups cut together. The score doesn’t really stand out in any way either. Still, this is that rare action/comedy crowdpleaser that can be enjoyed by just about anyone, and I respect it for that.
7/10
It’s a good story with well developed characters. Probably one of Danny Boyle’s most well directed and shot films (few too many Dutch angles, but ok) and lots of memorable music (not a fan of how they incorporated Paper Planes though, stripping the song from a lot of its meaning). I just don’t entirely get what the film’s trying to communicate on a thematic level. On the one hand it seems to imply that life experience is one of the most valuable tools one can have, but on the other hand it also acknowledges that most of what you’re seeing is just convenience and luck, which seem like conflicting points of view to me. The ending’s a little too cheesy for its own good, and the way it switches between English and Hindi throughout feels a bit weird and distracting (probably would’ve been better if they’d just committed to using one of the two). Still, I’d easily recommend it, just because it’s easy to get lost in, big and genuinely emotional.
6.5/10
A little overrated within the Danny Boyle catalogue.
Really great the cinematography in this, it’s a well aged product of its time. Love the dirty lo-fi quality, and even though the use of that technique has pioneered a lot of shit, it’s never used to cover up for its own cheapness here. In many ways it feels like two short films smashed together with a first half that’s driven by acting and characters, besides that it doesn’t do too much. I love the shots of the deserted city, but the characters are just fine (even a little cliché at points) and there’s not a lot action or intrigue. The supermarket scene also feels a bit out of place for me tonally. The second half, on the other hand, is great and the point where the film becomes more wild and substantive. The acting is good for the most part (though not really among the best work of Brendan Gleeson, Cillian Murphy and Naomi Harris), but the little girl is really bad. It’s hardly Danny Boyle’s best.
7/10
It’s very good, mostly carried by James Franco’s fantastic performance and the tension/horror.
The directing and editing are generally atmospheric and well done, though not all choices have aged as well. It can at times thread the line between being stylish and amateurish.
I also wish there was another interesting character besides Aron, which they could’ve done by fleshing out some of the people in the hallucinations a bit more.
But still, this is good and interesting all throughout, great use of sound during the climax and I love the dry guitar riff that plays throughout the film.
7.5/10
Got to say upfront that I'm not the biggest fan of this band; I find most of their songs lacking, which is often covered up with a sense of kitsch and theatricality. This might've subconsciously influenced my opinion, but having said that: this movie feels too generic and sanitized, strongly lacking in focus. I don't get why movies like this always feel the need to cover the entirety of someone's career/life, it's unnecessary and boring. This 'greatest hits compilation' approach leads to a film that's a bunch of clichés strung together into a narrative. Some of the editing isn't great, the pacing drags, it's very predictable, but Rami Malek's performance makes up for a lot. Just listen to a Queen record if you're in the mood, you'll probably get more out of it compared to watching this.
4.5/10
An incredibly annoying film that uses the current most overused comedy tropes (bathos, references, meta jokes) in the most uninspired and lazy ways. It brings absolutely nothing to the table besides exhausted clichés, and the filmmaking is boring at every turn.
“Hunt is the living manifestation of destiny!”
Probably the most plot driven MI film, so much so that it doesn’t even have a set piece during the third act. It really brings back that Hitchcock feeling that’s been missing since the original, the clever writing is as much of a draw as the action here. The set pieces are once again pretty spectacular and imaginative, the opera scene and motorcycle chase being among the franchise’s best. Ilsa Faust is the franchise’s best supporting character, the constant switching of allegiances was such a great idea to keep the audience guessing. Lane is one of the franchise’s better villains, though he’s not on the same level as Philip Seymour Hoffman. I also love how they realized that throwing in more Simon Pegg will automatically elevate any scene, his comedic and dramatic contributions to this franchise are still a little underappreciated. Technically it’s once again very accomplished, the cinematography by Robert Elswit is beautiful (and very different from his work on Ghost Protocol) and I’ll never get enough of hearing that theme song.
8.5/10
These premises never seem to fully click with me.
Idk, I just find this film, Edge of Tomorrow and Groundhog Day all a little too repetitive and lacking in propulsive energy.
It’s stylish and very 90s, though it can also be a little excessive at times.
It’s literally shot and edited like a music video for a 90s alternative band, and there’s constantly techno and breakbeat music playing in the background.
I like the two main characters, the acting’s pretty solid, and it definitely has a visceral and exciting quality about it, but what exactly did we accomplish with this butterfly effect gimmick?
Sure it’s kinda fun, but does it make up for the fact that you’re watching the same thing over and over again with some tweaks?
Still pretty decent though.
5.5/10
Quite a weird shift from TASM1, it’s a lot cartoonier and less gritty, but it doesn’t feel a lot like the Raimi trilogy either.
Its biggest problem is the lack of a narrative focus, it’s a bunch of subplots meshed together, some of which are desperately trying to set up future stories, and it doesn’t really work.
A lot of the dialogue sucks, the villains are just plain bad and poorly acted, and it’s a little too dumb, especially when it comes to character motivations and conveniences (even given how cartoony it is).
But, the central 2 characters and their chemistry work, the directing and cinematography are good, the action is well handled for the most part (besides that power plant scene, which looks like a cartoon) and it does have some great emotional beats that you don’t always get in blockbuster films.
There’s a scene between Sally Field and Andrew Garfield in this which features some actual great acting that you’re not likely to get in an MCU or DC film.
So it’s a film with some highlights and some great scenes, but it never was going to be a good film given its script.
But I will say that this whole narrative of it being even worse than Spider-man 3 is nonsense, simply because the acting alone is much better here, and the action isn’t a visual mess.
5/10
I always found this a bit too cheesy, even as a kid, and it’s kinda dated at this point, though I suppose most people aren’t quite willing to admit that (yet).
You can feel that this came out during a time where comic book movies weren’t taken seriously, and it aims at a younger audience than most of these films do nowadays.
The acting is very stiff and weird (it’s no surprise that it inspired so many memes), the dialogue can be clunky and awkward, the story is generic and predictable, the characters are fine but they also feel a lot like stereotypes and Goblin’s suit looks like it was designed by Joel Schoemacher, it’s too lame to take as seriously as the movie wants us to.
On the other hand, I do really love the scenes with JK Simmons, and I like how cinematic it feels, Raimi gives the film a lot of style. The action is pretty well done and can get surprisingly visceral.
But overall, I just don’t think it holds up, it really feels like a product of its time.
4.5/10
I like it a lot, even though it inspired so many studios to make greatest hits compilation films, most of which aren’t that good.
The reason why I’m letting it pass here is because it feels fresh, it does more than simply rehashing A New Hope.
It puts in the work of creating great new characters, the filmmaking techniques are very different compared to the original trilogy, and they do interesting things with the familiar stuff.
Take the original characters for example, all of them are taken to places that you wouldn’t expect based on the ending of Return of the Jedi.
Having said that, the starkiller base stuff is a bit boring and uninspired, even though there are still many great scenes in the third act.
8/10
It’s clearly one of those post-Die Hard films that tries to replicate the success of Die Hard, and it’s probably the one that does it best.
The creativity is all in the concept, and the execution is fantastic.
They squeeze every idea you can think of out of this concept.
It’s action heavy, tense all the way through, the stuntwork is well filmed and edited and you care just enough about the characters, though they could’ve been a little deeper (especially the villain, who kinda lacks a good motivation).
Its biggest problem is clearly the acting: Sandra Bullock and Dennis Hopper are fine, but Keanu and especially the supporting cast on the bus kinda suck.
Still, it’s a classic, and you should watch it.
7.5/10
A good set up for the finale, with some great cinematography and emotional beats.
I actually quite like the second act for one, it has this brooding, moody tone and you have some of the best acting from Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson in there.
There are quite a lot of action beats in it (not that many actual sequences though), which are mostly good, but I wasn’t a fan of how the chase near the end was edited together.
The logic can also be a little thin in places (What’s this mirror Harry suddenly has? Why were they only traced once, during that coffee shop visit? Why doesn’t Bellatrix recognize Ron and Hermoine after Order of the Phoenix? What are these distraction trumpets that Harry uses in the ministry sequence, and how did he get them?), which are mostly things that were omitted from the book and probably should’ve been in here somewhere to make the script a little tighter.
The animation style they used for the deathly hallows story was very creative, but I always found the hallows themselves to be a needless addition, overstuffing the plot with macguffins. The focus is on the horcruxes for 90% of this and part 2 regardless.
7/10
Entertaining in the exact same way that the later Fast and Furious installments are entertaining.
It’s stupid, gives you just enough to invest in the characters and some decent comedy.
The Rock wasn’t quite the moviestar he’s today, so it’s funny to see him being outshined by Sean William Scott on a few occasions.
Visually it’s pretty good, the soundtrack is surprisingly great.
The action is alright, there’s some good stuntwork in here, but sometimes there’s an overuse of close-ups.
The worst thing about it is the editing, which almost got me into disliking the film a few times.
It’s no cinematic masterpiece, but it’s exactly the film it wants to be and doesn’t try to be anything but that.
5.5/10
