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
Probably more mindblowing for an American audience that barely gets any exposure to this kind of material from its own industry. For my taste, Guadagnino plays it way too safe. I was waiting for it to push beyond the melodrama into something more wild or messed up, and I never really got that. He's constantly flexing with impressive camerawork, great editing and a fantastic score, but what is it all in service of? There's not a lot more to this than very basic melodrama. Tennis is used a metaphor for innuendo and relationships, which becomes a bit eye-rolling as the film goes along. On top of that it's not nearly as sexy as some people are suggesting, it feels like a lot of foreplay and innuendo without a real pay-off at any point. His camera doesn't shy away from nudity or sweat, and Trent Reznor's score puts in a lot of work in turning up the heat, but you want it to push beyond that at some point. For me it doesn't really develop into anything surprising and the conclusion it ultimately goes with feels kinda lame because of it. Still, it does a good job at intriguing you with the personal struggles of the three main characters, all of which are well portrayed by the actors. Zendaya is a bit hard to read at times, though it could be intentional with the character she's playing. There's enough merit to the complexity of the characters and technical aspects that kept me from being bored, but the entire time I kept thinking about how much more interesting this could be with someone like Paul Verhoeven at the helm.
6/10
I'm completely fine with not painting the broader context of the civil war in this film. If that doesn't interest Garland as a filmmaker, there's no need to. The notion of California and Texas teaming up negates any possibility of this being a direct metaphor almost by design. His interest here clearly lies in making a movie about journalism and neutrality as symbolized through the character played by Kirsten Dunst. Together with fellow photojournalists Joel, Jessie and Sammy we find ourselves on a road trip where our protagonists are trying to get to the white house and interview the president (Nick Offerman). Unfortunately, none of these characters are developed in an interesting way, so that makes the first half a bit of a slog. There's still interesting bits of tension, but some of the writing is surprisingly stupid coming from Alex Garland. Take the scene with Jesse Plemons, which is probably the best scene. The entire set-up to that scene introduces these two disposable new characters in a way that feels like it comes from a much dumber film, on top of that it makes the Plemons scene feel contrived and forced. That scene has some fantastic acting and tension, but it ultimately resolves in a way that's unintentionally funny by using a trope often found in action comedy films. I don't know if Garland's consciously watering it down to reach a broader audience, but he's certainly not at his sharpest here. You pretty much know from the beginning which characters are going to die, and they're usually killed once they expose themselves at their most human. Going back to how that comments on the theme of the film, I think that's an incredibly narrow minded, childish view of journalism. The film even indirectly acknowledges how taking pictures is a process of selection; there's bias involved there, it isn't neutral or simply something left for a reader to interpret. Combined with the general portrayal of the journalists as opportunistic assholes (look no further than the cheesy note this film ends on), this movie often fails to strike a chord that feels truthful. I could go into all the other small details that don't make a lot of sense (e.g. aren't there a ton of escape routes underneath the white house?), but instead I'll just leave it there. I enjoyed Dunst's and McKinley Henderson's performances (the other two aren't quite as strong) and the third act is an engaging set piece for as long as you don't put too much thought into it. Technically, it's fine. There's some beautiful visual moments but I wouldn't say it looks better than Devs or Annihilation. Rob Hardy does some interesting things with objects coming in and out of focus to reflect the main characters, but in terms of colour and composition I expect a little better from him. The music choices didn't work at all for me, I found the juxtaposition way too jarring. There's this De La Soul needle drop when someone's being executed and I'm still baffled what that scene's trying to communicate tonally. Still, I enjoyed the sound design and strong use of silence, especially during the more intense scenes. Overall, if this is A24's interpretation of what a blockbuster should be going forward, they probably shouldn't bother. I'm astounded by how much of this doesn't work. It's simultaneously too watered down to work as art and not fun enough to work as entertainment. For something that's tainted to be the 'most controversial movie of the year', it's too forgettable to leave a real impression.
4/10
This will probably become more beloved than Dune for being a bigger, more action driven film. Personally I prefer the first film by a long shot, but there's a lot to like here. I loved Paul's new journey for this installment as it doesn't develop in the way you'd expect based on the ending of the first film. The themes of colonialism, false prophecies and religion reach a level of depth that cannot be found in other sci-fi/fantasy contemporaries like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars; this film certainly made me understand why this story is taken so seriously as a piece of literature. Despite the source material being so old, there's still something new and refreshing about it. You don't often see major Hollywood productions calling out religion as a manipulative force helping the people in power. On top of that this brilliantly subverts the concept of the hero's journey we've become accustomed to by everything that was in one way or another inspired by Dune. The acting is pretty great, Timothée does a great job at playing the transition Paul goes through. Despite his boyish looks I was sold on his performance as the leader of the Fremen. Rebecca Ferguson and Javier Bardem are also scene stealers. The visuals are once again mindblowing, in terms of set/costume design, cinematography and CGI this is as close to perfection as you could get to right now. The vision and scope of this movie are truly unmatched, which leads to some breathtaking sequences that I'll remember for a while (sandworm ride; the black/white arena fight; knife fight during the third act).
However, for all the praise I have for Dune: Part 2, I think Denis is being uncharacteristically sloppy with this film. First of all, Bautista and Butler feel like they're ripped from a different franchise altogether. Their over the top, cartoonish performances are more suited for something like Mad Max than the nuanced world of Dune. The bigger cracks start to appear when you look at the writing. The brief moments where the movie pokes fun at religious zealots through Javier Bardem's character, while funny, probably won't age very well. Like the first movie, it has a tendency to rely too much on exposition and handholding, a problem which might be worse here. I feel like a lot of the subtlety is lost in order to make the movie more normie proof, and that's quite annoying for a movie with artistic ambitions like this one. For example, there's this scene where Léa Seydoux seduces Austin Butler's character, and everything you need to know as a viewer is communicated through Butler's performance. Cut to the next scene, where Seydoux is all but looking at the camera saying "he's a psychopath, he's violent, he wants power, etc.". I just feel like compared to Villeneuve's precise work on Blade Runner 2049, he's consciously dumbing it down here. It's understandable and somewhat excusable for a complex story like Dune, but he occasionally takes it too far for my liking. Then there's the love story subplot between Chani and Paul, which almost entirely misses the mark for me. It feels rushed, there's no chemistry between the actors and some of the lines are painfully cheesy. Because of that, the emotional gutpunch their story eventually reaches during the third act did little for me. Finally, I'm a little dissatisfied with the use of sound. I loved the otherworldly score Zimmer came up with for the first Dune, however this film is so ridiculously bombastic and low-end heavy that it starts to feel like a parody of his work with Christopher Nolan. For the final action beat of the film Villeneuve cuts out the film's score, and it becomes all the more satisfying for it.
Overall, I recommend this film, however maybe temper those expectations if you're expecting a masterpiece. There's a lot to admire, but it's flawed.
6.5/10
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
More garbage from Zaddy, this is a modern blueprint for what not to do when you’re making operatic sci-fi/fantasy. You could point at the obvious issues, such as the worldbuilding and story ripping off every other property in existence without putting much of its own spin on it (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Dune, Harry Potter, Mad Max, Excalibur, Seven Samurai, The Matrix to only name a few), but that doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of what’s wrong here. Snyder’s often praised for being this great visual stylist, but with Rebel Moon he might just deliver his most poorly directed film. Multiple shots are out of focus, the score is really manipulative and overblown, the staging of the action feels amateurish, there’s often a lack of proper depth of field (it kinda feels like those Star Wars shows on D+ due to the poor use of the volume stages) and he’s generally wanking off way too much with all the slo-mo here. Moreover, this has one of the worst scripts of the year due to all of the cheesy, overwitten dialogue and ridiculous amounts of exposition. It’s very hard to find a scene in this where the presentation and writing are somewhat organic or manage to create meaning in a way that feels artistically instinctual. Instead, it’s this lifeless mismatch of stale ideas. Add to that the fact that Snyder doesn’t know how to emphasize the strengths of the limited performers he’s working with here (besides Hounsou and Hopkins, who can handle themselves regardless of the director), and you can only conclude that Disney made the right decision by rejecting this.
1.5/10
Almost a complete failure. It’s a Frankstein movie; this has obviously been hacked to pieces and reassembled in a way where it doesn’t resemble whatever it was once supposed to be. The editing of this movie is a nightmare, because not only is the story incoherent and rushed, but even the action is quite hard to follow due to the film’s central gimmick. The dialogue’s as cringe as expected from Marvel nowadays, with every attempt at comedy falling flat and tons of boring expository scenes. I don’t understand why the most interesting character beats are placed before the timeframe of this film (e.g. the destruction of Hala by Karol ), because nobody in this movie has a real fleshed out arc. Why not open your movie with that scene as it’d build naturally from where the first movie left off? That’s not to say that it doesn’t entirely try, because there are a few artistic swings in here, but those moments feel like they come from a different film. Instead, this movie’s only real merit comes from the baseline of quality you can expect from a production of this magnitude, so the costumes and production design are generally quite good. Visually it’s extremely inconsistent though. I can tell there’s someone with a good eye behind this, but so much of it looks plastic, unfinished and/or poorly lit. Overall, I’d argue this is the worst Marvel Studios film so far. Maybe it’s not quite as annoying as Love and Thunder, but this is just really a depressing, mind numbing watch.
2.5/10
For something that tries to be as dumb and meatheaded as possible, this is quite boring. There’s an art to making a good bad movie and filmmakers seem so clueless whenever these are attempted nowadays. Most of the people involved probably weren’t coked-up enough to make the end result entertaining, unlike when these were made in the 80s. Take Jake Gyllenhaal, he’s obviously a great actor but someone who’s way too introverted for this type of material. By comparison, Conor McGregor fits this movie like a glove and he’s easily the most entertaining part by playing the same persona we’ve become accustomed to over the years (even if the performance is obviously quite terrible). As far as I’m concerned, his introduction scene is the only memorable thing about the movie, it’s this moment where the movie very briefly finds the right tone. The rest of the film is surprisingly bland and tame. Sure, the throwaway characters, simple story and terrible dialogue were all a given, but even the set pieces aren’t memorable as they’re often poorly staged and lacking in viscera. Someone gets eaten by a crocodile and we don’t even get to see it, the background extras during the big bar fights look amateurish and the choreography/stuntwork (besides a decent final fight) is often way too dull. The 80s, GTA Vice City aesthetic that’s promised by the poster doesn’t show up, most of this film has no visual personality. Then there’s the music, which might just be the worst thing about all of this. Right from the opening scene we’re met with auditory vomit courtesy of a cameoing Post Malone, following that there are occasional musical interludes that don’t complement the vibe of the film and on top of that score is filled with the type of ‘badass’ guitar riffing found in car commercials. None of it works in harmony, and I don’t get who it’s targeting. Much like the rest of the film I needed more wild energy for it to work, as the overall experience feels too much like camp by committee.
2/10
Quite a frustrating watch. It has this great concept of showing mundane, everyday life juxtaposed with horrifying imagery and sound hanging in the background, many reviewers have referred to it as the banality of evil. It's an inventive way of doing a Holocaust movie, but there's not much else to this. Glazer spreads the concept really thin over the 105 minute runtime, and I started to check out around the halfway mark. It's lacking in structure (no character arcs or big plot developments), every time it threatens to go somewhere it turns out to be an excuse to use the same bag of tricks. The acting and stilted cinematography are both pretty decent, but because they're both meant to serve the understated tone and nothing else, it can't fall back on those aspects. Again, if the tone is enough to carry this experimental film for you, your experience might be different. However, I became increasingly numb towards the repetitive nature, eventually feeling rather indifferent towards the experience (which is the last thing I want with a movie like this).
4.5/10
Nicholas Cage keeps up his bizarre career streak of pinballing between high and low art. He works really well in this post-Ari Aster drama/comedy/sci-fi/fantasy/horror/....; basically it's this experimental, surrealist art piece that refuses to pigeonhole itself into a specific genre. It's surprisingly cohesive and comments on topics such as celebrity culture, image and how fame can make one lose perspective of the important things in life. Like Beau is Afraid, it's structured like an unpredictable rollercoaster ride that hits many different emotions along the way. I was really enjoying it, though it started to lose me a little bit towards the end because you could tell the filmmakers had a hard time wrapping up this story. The filmmaking also feels like it's coming from a director who's just starting out. The filmic look is quite nice (pay special attention towards the trees when Cage is walking outside), but too much of this is shot like basic coverage. There are also some questionable editing choices and the score that doesn't really fit the quirky, surrealist tone. Still, I'd recommend the end result to any A24 loyalist.
6.5/10
It cuts a lot of corners in the first 10 minutes, and I kinda wish they’d found the way to integrate most of that stuff into the first half of the broadcast, as it takes too long to get going. The possession movie it eventually morphs into is alright, albeit fairly predictable. A lot of the choices reminded me of James Wan horror vehicles, which I always have a hard time taking seriously. The movie seems to be aware of that too, because it’ll occasionally push things to a more schlocky, comical place that’ll strike a chord with Sam Raimi fans. Is it uneven because of that? Absolutely. In fact, I found a lot of this half baked. The social commentary (which feels like it’s borrowing a lot from Network) isn’t fleshed out properly, Dastmalchian’s performance should’ve been more sleazy and colourful and I just didn’t feel that much emotion by the end of it. The strength of this film lies much more in its faithful recreation of the 70s talkshow aesthetic, and I particularly like its commitment to the found footage feel, which feels lot more artful than the popular found footage stuff from over a decade ago. If only they put as much effort into making the sound as dusty and lo-fi, because the film generally sounds too clean and modern. Overall, it’s not really my thing but I can see why a lot of people like it.
4.5/10
I laughed quite a lot.
This takes itself so goddamn seriously, it’s almost like it doesn’t know that it’s really fucking trashy.
How does a director look at this material and think: yeah, I can make a serious thriller out of this.
Besides being hilariously dumb, the dialogue and acting are truly on a whole other level.
If the director comes out and admits that they intentionally parodied Will Smith’s “what are we, some kind of Suicide Squad” line in this, I’ll reconsider my score.
Until then: 2/10
Another Bond pastiche from Matthew Vaughn, and once again it’s worse than the last one. Here we have what is basically another Kingsman film, but this time it’s made for the wine moms who had found their new favorite film with The Lost City. The plot is quite bonkers, it's so dense and the amount of schlocky plot twists indicate that Vaughn’s at least somewhat aware of how tasteless it all is. Sometimes you can still find traces of the cleverness you’d expect from him, but generally it favours being loud and cringe. I understand that he’s targeting a different demographic here than with Kingsman, but the end result is so tame and commercial that it feels more like typical streaming filler (Red Notice, Ghosted). Some of the acting is atrocious. Obviously Rockwell puts in the best work, but it doesn’t make up for the stiff performances by Cavill, Howard and Lipa (though she gets a pass for being Dua Lipa). The directing is also noticeably a step down compared to Vaughn’s previous stuff. It doesn’t feel like he put much heart and soul in this, because besides some good stuntwork it looks like shit. There’s just so much plastic sheen (artificial bright lighting, tacky CGI, unnatural compositions and camera movement) that it becomes incredibly ugly to look at. You could pass that off as ‘well it’s meant to be cartoonish’, but I’m not going to make that leap when there’s this little artistry to it. Vaughn needs to stop making these, the whole thing feels predictable and played out.
2.5/10
This is fascinating, I loved every second of it. Such a brilliantly written script and Cate Blanchett’s performance deserves every possible accolade, Lydia Tár is one of the best characters I’ve seen in a long time. The way the film tackles pretension, artistic ego and achievement as a veil for perceived integrity, and the abuse of power that results from it really spoke to me. Should artists be held accountable or not? Should we seperate art and artist? What is the effect of cancel culture on art? These are questions I’m currently asking myself, as one of my own favorite artists made anti semetic remarks and alligned himself with highly questionable social movements just a few weeks ago, tanking his own career. I used to be firmly in the camp of seperating the two, but this movie made me reconsider that, which is quite an achievement. An achievement made all the more impressive by the fact that there’s no spoonfeeding going on here. The main character isn’t judged in an obvious way and Todd Field clearly wants you to draw your own conclusions.
Now, the script is super intricate, there’s a lot of technical mumbo jumbo in it. Having a background in music (and music theory) myself, I can honestly say that a lot of that stuff went over my head. I got the impression that parts of it were meant to be satirical, but still: you don’t need to feel stupid if you don’t have a perfect grasp on what all of that means, because it’s not the crux of the story. Your focus should be drawn to the journey of our main character, which is intriguing by itself. It starts out as a drama, but then incorporates elements of psychological thrillers as the film progresses. After the movie finished, I immediately wanted to go back and dissect how we’d gotten to the point where we end up.
The filmmaking is very Fincher-y: it’s cold, impersonal, distant, and it has some of the best one takes you’re going to see this year. It’s confidently slow paced, subtle and the director likes to linger on certain shots for a long time, which will inevitably lead to some of the general audience calling it '''''boring''''', even though it obviously isn’t. In fact, I can even see it winning Oscars in a few technical categories, it’s that exceptional.
9/10
This is somewhat reminiscent of the 2014 Godzilla film in the sense that it's trying to be a drama first and a spectacle second. Don't worry, you'll get more of the titular monster here compared to that film, but those who are just looking for destruction are bound to walk out disappointed. In theory this should be right up my alley for that exact reason, but despite being a relatively small Japanese production, the end result I found oddly commercial. Take the character drama, which thankfully is handled more interestingly than the Gareth Edwards film. It puts in just enough work as an analysis of post-war trauma in Japan (I like that they play up the angle of Godzilla as a metaphor for this, wish they'd pushed that a little further) and they put more effort into making us engage with the characters than a movie like this usually would. However, there's still something very calculated and safe about it. In particular, the dynamic between our main 'family' is very obvious because it uses many predictable tropes that play out exactly as expected. For example, our tortured protagonist doesn't quite view the little kid he's living with as his daughter yet (I wonder where that'll go). Moreover, there are plenty of cheesy calls, which during its worst moments lead to scenes that are straight up manipulative. Without going into spoilers, this movie has one of the most annoying final scenes I've seen in a long time, completely backtracking on a major emotional beat of the movie. It honestly felt like the movie pulling a middle finger at its audience. What doesn't help either is that the dialogue, acting and filmmaking aren't the best. Subtleties are spelled out through exposition, every emotion is underscored with generic string sections, the actors are overdoing it at points (even for Japanese standards, trust me). Long story short, the choices all feels very ... Hollywood. I'm not expecting Grave of the Fireflies here, but why focus half of your movie on this aspect when it isn't anything special. The action bits I found slightly better. This movie generally has decent direction, with some design/effects work I'd genuinely call excellent. The fact that they made this with less than 1/10th of the budget of Godzilla vs Kong is really funny to me. Still, the sequences with Godzilla aren't visionary enough where they'll leave a mark on my brain, which is something you really need when you're working in the big monster/disaster genre. Going back to the 2014 film, that movie has a very distinct atmosphere with a very memorable finale. The camera placement and overall presentation here are much more on the functional side. Entertaining enough, but also very reliant on convenience and cheesy, ridiculous moments. For instance, I dare anyone not to laugh at the news crew standing on the roof when Godzilla attacks the city. It's so stupid, but played completely straight. Overall, while I expect a lot of people who think they're cultured for liking Hollywood movies that aren't made by Hollywood will like this, I thought it was the usual middle of the road same old, same old.
5/10
It’s quite clear what this is trying to be: a meta whodunnit comedy like Knives Out mixed with the quirk and visual style of early Wes Anderson. Is it charming? Yes. Is it funny? Yes, though the comedy does miss at times. Is it annoying? Also yes, but only sporadically. Unfortunately it doesn’t have the same panache as Wes Anderson, nor is it as clever and subversive as Knives Out. It kinda does that Matrix Resurrections thing where it points out all of its own cliches and genre trappings in the first act, but then goes on to embrace most of them. It all culminates in a third act that I thought was frankly underwhelming and predictable. What keeps it watchable are the performances, characters, editing, music and direction, but this should’ve been a lot bolder. A decent effort from a first time feature director, but let’s see if he can come up with something where he doesn’t lean on his influences so hard.
5.5/10
Damn, we're already milking early 2000s culture to trigger the dopamine buttons? Sometimes I wonder how blockbusters in the future will try to evoke the current era. How do you copy an era that's almost nothing but nostalgia, an era that coasts almost entirely on recycling stale ideas, IP and music from 20 to 40 years ago? Madame Web finds itself at a similar creative dead end. Why does Sony keep persisting on reviving this wave of forgotten B-movies from the early 2000s? I had some fun with Venom because of Tom Hardy's ridiculous performance, but I see no artistic merit with this or Morbius. It feels like everyone involved is several degrees of incompetent, or they simply didn't care. In fact, I probably already put more effort into this review than these screenwriters did with their script, so I see no reason to analyze this any further. Avoid at all cost.
1/10
It was already clear with Kung Fu Panda 3 they'd run out of story to tell, but now they've also run out of visual ideas. There's a general cheapness and disposability to this not found with previous installments. I rewatched the original trilogy not too long ago and I'd argue 2 & 3 are way stronger visually (both in terms of technical execution and imagination). Even the sound mix seems more than a little wonky to me (voices are generally too low in the mix; cheap echo effects pop up everywhere). Doesn't this all feel a little underbudgeted to anyone else? I understand cutting out the Furious Five for budgetary concerns, but bringing in Awkwafina instead isn't much of a creative fix. The story, which has never been a real strength of this series, doesn't leave much of an impression either. I doubt even the target audience will get much out of it with all the poor comedy, underdeveloped new characters and lack of interesting twists. The whole film feels straightforward to a fault and it's forgettable because of that. I still remember bits and pieces from the original trilogy and I just know that's never going to happen with this one. It’s still a small step above the best Illumination films, but very disappointing overall.
3.5/10
I’m happy to see this character back, but what on earth did they do to the cinematography and colour grading?
Where did the vibrancy of this show go?
I absolutely hate this ugly, washed out, low contrast, ‘modern’ look, it looks cheap as hell.
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
I feel like I finally understand the people who are turned off by the Coen brothers for their quirks and eccentricities. This is a really annoying film, it's like Pulp Fiction if it was made by someone who doesn't know how to elevate that type of trashy/B-movie material. Technically still quite admirable (lots of good cinematography and editing), but overall just held back by insufferable dialogue, poor attempts at experimental/psychedelic imagery and a lack of memorable moments.
4/10
Very solid, easily one of the best summer movie of 2022 next to Top Gun: Maverick and Nope.
It’s lean and mean, just like the original.
Maybe adding a few more bells and whistles would’ve helped with distinguishing it from that film, but the location, time period and Inarritu influence do the trick just fine (pretty sure The Revenant was an inspiration for this).
The cinematography is surprisingly excellent, lots of beautiful shots with natural light and all the scenes that take place at night are visually clear without being overlit. The music and sound design are also really well done, it’s very good at conveying the primal, urgent vibe you want out of a Predator film. The performances are solid, the action scenes are well directed without every losing a sense of clarity and the pacing is tight.
I just wish there was a bit more to these characters, they’re a bit barebones for my liking. It also didn’t really surprise me at any point, it very much plays out in the way you’d expect, especially if you’ve seen the original.
Still, I quite enjoyed this, Dan Trachtenberg is definetely one of the more interesting genre filmmakers working today.
7/10
Comments be like: https://youtu.be/ucAyib45TP8
I’m done with these Disney products. This show had an excellent pilot, but it’s like they used most of their budget and stylistic ideas with that first episode. Such a massive drop in production and directing quality after that (though tbf: the finale wasn’t bad, which had the same directing team as the pilot). Lots of muddy cinematography, rushed vfx, weird pacing and haphazard storytelling. The cast was truly great and saved the show from becoming complete shit, but everything else feels so low effort and overly reliant on set-up/references. I’ll stick around for the projects that have people involved who know what they’re doing (James Gunn, Ryan Coogler), but Disney’s got to fix their overall quality problem. This is embarrassing and cynical; filmmaking and storytelling shouldn’t just be about creating a few short rushes of dopamine.
The tagline for this movie is: Holiday classics were meant to be broken.
Sounds about right.
This show will ultimately fall or stand by the answers it gives to its mysteries.
Until then, I’m quite enjoying this as an homage to old school sitcoms.
Denis Villeneuve is the man!
There’s only one word that came into my mind after watching it: finally.
Finally, a blockbuster that isn’t afraid to be primarily driven by drama and tension, and doesn’t undercut its own tone by throwing in a joke every 30 seconds.
Finally, a blockbuster that puts actual effort in its cinematography, and doesn’t have a bland or calculated colour palette.
Finally, a blockbuster with a story that has actual substance and themes, and doesn’t rely on intertextual references or nostalgia to create a fake sheen of depth.
Finally, a blockbuster that doesn’t pander to China by having big, loud and overblown action sequences, but relies on practical and grounded spectacle instead (it has big sand worms, you really don’t need to throw anything at the screen besides that).
Finally, a blockbuster that actually feels big, because it isn’t primarily shot in close ups, or on a sound stage.
And of course: finally, a blockbuster that isn’t a fucking prequel, sequel, or connected to an already established IP somehow.
(Yeah, I know Tenet did those things as well, but I couldn’t get into that because the characters were so flat and uninteresting).
This just checks all the boxes. An engaging story with subtext, very well set up characters, great acting (like James Gunn, Villeneuve's great at accentuating the strengths of limited actors like Dave Bautista and Jason Momoa), spectecular visuals and art design (desaturated but not in an ugly washed out way), pacing (slow but it never drags), directing, one of Hans Zimmer’s best scores: it’s all here.
I only have one real criticism: there’s too much exposition, especially in the first half.
It can occasionally hold your hand by referencing things that have already been established previously, and some scenes of characters explaining stuff to each other could’ve been conveyed more visually.
Other than that, it’s easily one of the best films of the year.
I’ve seen some people critiquing it for being incomplete, which is true, but this isn’t just a set up for a future film.
It feels like a whole meal, there are pay offs in this, and the characters progress (even if, yes, their arcs are still incomplete).
8.5/10
Barbenheimer: Part 1 of 2
This is the kind of film I really don’t want to criticize, because we don’t get nearly enough other stuff like it. However, mr. Nolan has been in need of an intervention for a while now, and unfortunately all of the issues that have been plaguing his films since The Dark Knight Rises show up to some degree here. Visually it might just be his best film, and there’s some tremendous acting in here, particularly by Murphy and RDJ. However, it makes the common biopic mistake of treating its subject matter like a Wikipedia entry, thereby not focussing enough on character and perspective. As a whole, the film feels more like a long extended montage, I don’t think there are many scenes that go on for longer than 60 seconds. There’s a strong ‘and then this happened, and then this happened’ feel to it, which definitely keeps up the pace, but it refuses to stop and let an emotion or idea simmer for a while. There are moments where you get a look into Oppenheimer’s mind, but because the film wants to cover too much ground, it’s (like everything else) reduced to quick snippets. It’s the kind of approach that’d work for a 6 hour long miniseries where you can spend more time with the characters, not for a 3 hour film. I can already tell that I won’t retain much from this, in fact a lot of it is starting to blur together in my mind. There are also issues with some of the dialogue and exposition, such as moments where characters who are experts in their field talk in a way that feels dumbed down for the audience, or just straight up inauthentic. Einstein is given a couple of cheesy lines, college professors and students interact in a way that would never happen, Oppenheimer gives a lecture in what’s (according to the movie) supposed to be Dutch when it’s really German; you have to be way more careful with that when you’re making a serious drama. Finally, there are once again major issues with the sound mixing. I actually really loved the score, but occasionally it’s blaring at such a volume where it drowns out important dialogue in the mix. I’m lucky enough to have subtitles, but Nolan desperately needs to get his ears checked, or maybe he should’ve asked some advice from Benny Safdie since he’s pretty great with experimental sound mixing. My overall feelings are almost identical to the ones I had regarding Tenet; Nolan needs to rethink his approach to writing, editing and mixing. This film as a whole doesn’t work, but there are still more than a few admirable qualities to it.
Edit: I rewatched this at home to see whether my feeling would change. I still stand by what I wrote in July, though the sound mix seems to have been improved for the home media release. It sounds more balanced and I didn’t miss one line of dialogue this time around. I’m slightly raising my score because of that, but besides that I still think it’s unfocused, overedited, awkwardly staged and scripted etc.
5.5/10
After the 2014 Godzilla film, people demanded a dumb monster movie.
The result is something that joins the ranks of Jurassic World 2, Pacific Rim 2 or Rampage.
Happy now?
Pro's:
- Creature design/VFX.
- The set up for the 3 main human characters (the idea that drives them).
Con's:
- Massively overblown (especially at the end).
- Too much exposition and way too plot driven. Emphasizing the plot is never a good idea when you make a film like this.
- The dialogue in this is awful, and does the actors no favours.
- The characters are hollow shells, and constantly act in unnatural ways. Especially what they did with Vera Farmiga's character felt lazy and not earned.
- It overuses the orange and teal look to a degree where Zack Snyder would be jealous of it.
- If you thought the final season of GoT had a lot of deus ex machina and 'plot armour' moments, just know that you've seen nothing yet.
- The action scenes in this are incoherent and underlit, and therefore hard to follow.
I find it funny that whenever we get one of these, the take away for most always seems to be: too much focus on the humans, not enough on the monsters!
Well, here's the thing: you can't really develop characters like Godzilla or King Kong, so watching them for 2 hours walk through buildings and punching things is going to get dull very fast.
Therefore, you need the human focus.
You know which director knows this? Steven Spielberg.
You know which movie knows this? Jurassic Park.
So instead of demanding more shallow elements for the next one, let's maybe ask for the filmmakers to develop the characters for once, and stop focussing on a plot we've seen hundreds of times at this point.
2.5/10
Assuming that this is intentionally meant to be camp is doing it a service it doesn’t deserve, I think.
Yes, there’s goofy and trashy stuff in it, but they play it mostly straight with the presentation, i.e. most of this feels like it’s trying to be an actual movie. It’s not as over the top and entertaining as it needed to be, like it’s certainly no Malignant or Drag me to Hell.
Instead, it’s one of the dullest experiences I’ve had in a long time.
All of the actors are instant razzie frontrunners (especially Allison Williams, holy shit what a trainwreck of a performance) and the writing constantly veers between human dialogue as interpreted by aliens (or M Night Shyamalan), and unintentionally (yes, unintentionally) funny garbage. I know it’s unintentional, because the intentional jokes that are worked into the script aren’t funny at all.
The story is of course laughable and completely predictable. So many unnecessary, boring scenes, as well as quick bits that are clearly aimed to just be memes on TikTok. Even the crazy stuff felt fairly restrained to me, it’s not nearly bonkers enough to become entertaining. For example, don’t go into this expecting more of the dance sequence, because all of the best bits are in the trailer.
Finally, the filmmaking and visual style are instantly forgettable. Not a single interesting shot or artistic choice in the whole thing.
In short, nothing fun or clever about it, just very typical January horror kitsch that was probably only greenlit as a tax write-off for Jason Blum.
1.5/10
Rian Johnson is starting to turn into the white Jordan Peele. He's another one of those filmmakers that loves to work in this niche of subversive genre films that include a heavy dose of social commentary, and I'm all here for it. Specifically, with this franchise we’ve gone from satirizing old money with Knives Out to satirizing new money with this new film (chances are Knives Out 3 will center around a group of homeless suspects). Now, a lot of films in that same vein have been released recently (Triangle of Sadness, The Menu), but I think none of them do the satire as well as this film. To me it’s too easy at this point to simply aim your commentary at these people by making a statement about how stupid and incompetent they are. It seems like low hanging fruit to me, because everyone with a brain knows that these types are vapid and contribute nothing to society. Luckily, Rian Johnson understands this too and goes one step beyond that, filtering all of his commentary through this idea of the glass onion. These people aren’t just stupid and incompetent, but they’re using a veil of eccentricity and ‘complexity’ to hide that. This is a brilliant deconstruction that rings very true for today’s society, and of course you can’t quite escape the obvious parallel with Twitter’s manchild CEO firing himself this week. This subtext is woven into a lot of elements of the film (character, location, plot, even some props), which means that some things are a lot dumber and simpler than they appear to be. I think that will annoy some people, but I think it's quite clever. Like the first film, you get a great cast of colourful characters. Some of them are given depth, some of them are just playing funny caricatures. Daniel Craig owns the whole movie again, but Janelle Monáe comes pretty close to outperforming him. Even people like Dave Bautista do a great job, and it’s because Rian Johnson knows how to use these actors despite their limited range. There are plenty of twists you won’t see coming and the filmmaking is again terrific. It looks very cinematic with the blocking, lighting and compositions, and the score feels very 60s (lots of strings, some minor baroque orchestration), which reminded me of The White Lotus and a certain Beatles song. In the end, what puts it over the first film for me is the fact that the tone feels more consistent here. The more tense and dramatic moments of Knives Out didn’t really hit home for me when you have Daniel Craig doing a really campy accent, and this one just fully embraces that it’s a silly comedy. And it’s a great one at that, nearly all the jokes landed for me. Maybe could’ve done with a little less shouting from Kate Hudson, but ok, it makes sense for the character. Probably the most fun movie of the year next to Top Gun: Maverick, and definitely one of the most well constructed.
8/10
