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
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
I'm 36, and while I'm too much of a weenie to have made it past night 3 in the first game, watching others (particularly Markiplier) play through the series is what got me into watching let's players on Youtube. I thought this movie was great! Was it a good movie? Nothing to write home about; the animatronics were fantastic, the sound design was good, Matthew Lillard is a gift, but otherwise it was sort of middle of the road. But I had a great time watching it. I laughed a lot, I pointed wildly at the screen so my cat could see the easter eggs, and near the end when Afton took off the mask I did a big Super Bowl touchdown reaction. I'm gonna make my mom watch it, because it's something connected to a thing I'm very much interested in, so I want to share it with her, and it's not anywhere near scary enough to get to her (she's very, very bad with being startled, and I didn't find that much of anything besides the three Balloon Boy jumps were actually startling).
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
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'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
First of all: damn, what an amazing cast! It’s a shame that this is a true story of course, but what an amazing way to translate one of the biggest scandals ever to the big screen. Amazing movie.
Pleasantly surprised by my first Aki Kaurismaki film. It's almost like a mashup of Kieslowski, Wenders, Fassbinder with a bit of Jean Pierre Jeunet and Jacques Demy chucked in. All of those influences are clear. The movie essentially explores compassion / morality, styled in 1970s but set in modern day. The currency is Euros, the conversation is immigration and Al Quaeda - but the set design is from a few decades ago. This is obviously deliberate - is it to play on Kaurismaki's exasperation on the lack of progress in recent times? Despite this, and the film having a few sombre subplots, it is very optimistic and explores the true value of community / love they neighbour ethic. Really impressed by Kaurismaki and can't wait to explore more of his movies to find out if they are as good as 'Le Havre'
Ambitious…. But messy.
There is some good stuff here but also some things that just didn’t work. At times the action looked phenomenal, at other times I couldn’t follow what was happening with the shakey cam and the way some of it was cut. I liked the story and exploring the past. The training break between 2nd and 3rd act was the weakest part of the movie. Also felt little unsatisfying with the way it wraps. I think Dev showed some good traits though and will definitely check out whatever he does next. Shout out to Shantel Copley, he’s great as always!
I’m not the biggest fan of the original, and I think Scott improves a little bit on that film’s inconsistency of tone. Besides that, everything is dumbed down for modern audiences. Tacky, overly flashy editing; shouting instead of subtlety; less intricacy in regard to the plotting; a score overselling how cool everything is; no atmosphere, etc.. Really hated Travolta incredibly annoying performance, Denzel and Turturro are collecting a paycheck.
3/10
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
Before my screening there was a special message from Ziggy Marley ensuring the movie would be true to life because he attached himself as a producer to this project. If that's true, then Bob Marley probably doesn't deserve his own film. What I see here is another sanitized, bland Hollywood biopic, it's basically Walk Hard Part 7 at this point. I think we have to come to terms with Straight Outta Compton being the last great music biopic for a while, because the success of Bohemian Rhapsody has been an absolute travesty for this genre. This is another case of a movie that's strongly lacking in focus, character development, structure and above all authenticity. Where to even begin? The pathetic attempts at abstract imagery, the comical depiction of the UK punk scene, the obligatory success montage, the usual 'we improvised this song on the spot and it turned out to be a classic' scene, the way it quickly brushes over the more complicated aspects of Marley's personality; it's all so phony. I couldn't even tell you what the movie is about as a whole. New plot developments are introduced very awkwardly (political situation in Jamaica; shooting; cancer) only to be pushed to the side five minutes later. Because of that there's no real climax, dramatic build or pay-off. Still, there are a couple of positives. It's passable from a technical perspective, however for a movie about Jamaican reggae it should've been stronger on psychedelic vibes. The music is obviously a major highlight, and I thought Ben-Adir's vocals blended very seamlessly with Marley's. It's his performance combined with the scene stealing Lashana Lynch that keep the movie watchable, but none of that changes I think this is a massive waste of time.
3.5/10
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
Season 1 wasn't exactly superb but was passable. Season 2 just sucks. Lame story dragged out over 10 episodes and nothing funny along the way.
Please... someone force Selena Gomez to take acting lessons!! She has the acting skills of a cardboard box. At the very least, teach her how to use a non monotone voice, its called inflection I believe.
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
My girlfriend's a Taylor fan, she enjoyed this a little more than me. For a little bit of background: I've never been that into her music until she released the Folkmore and Evermore records during quarantine. Since then I've gone back into her catalogue and found some other material I liked. The problem for me is that growing up I found a lot of her bigger radio singles excruciatingly bland or even annoying, an opinion that hasn't changed all that much over the years. Obviously she can't omit those songs during a concert like this, so the quality here ranges from excellent to Look What You Made Me Do. I'd say I enjoyed about 1/3rd of the songs, with the segments from the aforementioned albums easily being the strongest. It's also the only parts where I found the staging and visuals artistically compelling, because despite having seemingly unlimited resources at her disposal, I found the other choices of decor too bland. She often relies on what I assume are recreations of her most famous music videos, which doesn't quite speak to the imagination. Unfortunately that means I got bored through a lot of the more mediocre songs, even despite the genuine joy and relatability Swift has a performer. Technically, I have no complaints. The cinematography and editing are great (despite some occasional reaction shots from the audience, which always tends to feel phony to me) and the sound mix is very well balanced. Still, I wouldn't recommend this to anyone besides the hardcore Swifties, because a casual listener is unlikely to find a newfound appreciation of her music here.
4.5/10
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
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
This will probably be among the most well liked Oscar contenders, it's a very accessible crowdpleaser with clever writing and comedy. The scenes satirizing the exploitation & commercialization of black art are easily among the film's most entertaining moments, but it loses steam whenever it cuts back to the stuff about Monk's personal life (despite some pretty great acting by Sterling K. Brown). I also found the filmmaking pretty average; the locations and cinematography are decent but lacking in vision or personality. The acting's generally pretty good, but it probably would've been better if some of the wackiness remained more understated. It all leads back to the same issue for me; this needed a more experienced director at the helm (e.g. I'd love to see Spike Lee's version of this). The writing carries it a long way but some of the watered down choices make it feel more like a disposable streaming film than it should.
5.5/10
Comedy as white bread, easily the worst out of John Hughes' 3 classic films. It's an uninspired story with a dynamic between the main characters we've seen a million times before, and their arc is executed in the most predictable way imaginable. The comedy leans heavily towards the cheesy side; just way too many dumb, obvious moments that really missed the mark for me. Steve Martin lays it on way too thick, which is also one of the reasons why I could never get into Only Murders in the Building. John Candy, on the other hand, is quite decent and got a few laughs out of me. Still, I find most of its choices too middlebrow and lame, as is often the case with mainstream comedies. It's like Hughes falls victim here to some of the things he omitted so well from previous outings. Even his filmmaking is quite weak; the interesting punctuation in the camerawork and editing from Ferris Bueller is nowhere to be found here, and the use of score/music is maybe the worst thing about the movie. If you want to look at movies that are way too eager to guide the viewer emotionally at every turn, this is one of the worst offenders when it comes to that. There's just not a lot about this that I can praise, though it's far from the worst thing I've seen. Ah well, maybe I should try this again in a few decades to see the charm in it. Shouldn't be impossible as I'll probably have everything erased from my memory in a few days.
3.5/10
Well deserved classic, a perfect film. Really fantastic, clever script about the nature of justice that functions within the confines of the noir genre. Masterful use of sound and visuals by Fritz Lang, technically it feels very ahead of its time but it’s also very pronounced stylistically. The acting styles and dialogue don’t just feel like they’re from this time period, they feel specific to this film. I’d love to write an in depth analysis about this one someday, but considering that so many papers have already been written about it, I don’t think I could bring much to the table in terms of original thoughts. Just take a chance on it if you’re unsure; don’t let it being a German black and white film scare you away from seeing it.
9.5/10
A really boring, surface level exploration of one of the more interesting musical figures of the 20th century. It makes the classic biopic mistake of retelling the subject’s life through bullet points instead of providing a unique artistic perspective or insight. The writing is so flat and just doesn’t seem to get at the heart of anything that could be memorable, which is strange because there’s potentially so much to work with. I’d welcome a movie that gave us a look into Bernstein’s artistic process/contributions or outspoken, opinionated mind, but so much of this feels like a calculated vanity project for Bradley Cooper. Carey Mulligan is the only one who completely disappears into her role in a way that feels authentic, because the other performers are a little too eager to ham it up for Academy Awards voters. You can tell Cooper did a lot of research for his role, but there’s something about his performance that feels phony and too studied. Thankfully he does a better job in the director’s chair, because in terms of visuals, editing and staging this is an improvement over A Star is Born. The score is often pompous and overblown (not counting the conducting scenes, of course), but I’ll give him a pass on that one because we’re dealing with a classical composer here. He even occasionally flirts with subjective abstractions (e.g. the scenes that refer back to the silent film era), however in the grander scheme of things those moments feel isolated and disconnected from the rest of the film. It’s strange how you can always feel his adventurous spirit behind the camera, but the movie as a whole never stops feeling like hollow Oscar bait. Compared to a movie like Tár there’s a strong argument to be made how writing fiction can loosen the creative restraint for a writer. Because of that I honestly don’t get why there’s still such a strong emphasis on the biopic in awards circles, and no movie from 2023 exemplifies that better than Maestro.
4/10
Pretty wild film that’s good at playing with your expectations. The characters and acting are solid, Rosamund Pike is so funny that she stole the entire movie for me. The technical aspects are also excellent; really appreciate the specific aspect ratio and gothic nods in the cinematography, as well as some great needle drops that authentically capture the college experience of ‘06. However, the story is kind of a mess because the film wants to seemingly do everything (wealth satire, gay love story, erotic thriller, con movie, murder mystery etc.) so that leads to a film that feels inconsistent. The tone of this film varies between absurdly comedic, grounded, romantic, thrilling, gross; it kept me intrigued while being very frustrating at the same time. The motivations of the characters can also get a bit thin, with the final twist not repairing that as Fennell probably thinks it does ( leave those kind of montages to mr. Fincher, please ). Overall, this one is recommendable for the singular experience it provides, but it should’ve been more refined.
5.5/10
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
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
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
There's this thing about modern action movies where I sometimes don't quite understand who they're made for anymore. This is a really good example of that. In fact, this movie is so bad that even the dads who collectively skip the mature 'boring' films will most likely turn their noses up for it. It's appropriately stupid and over the top, but completely devoid of any charm, blood, humor, sex or fun. There's attempts at gore and comedy, but executed in a way where I don't see it satisfying anyone. Take Alison Brie, who plays this annoying millennial reporter stereotype who's obsessed with her phone, or John Cena, who's given the bland soldier/family guy type of role Dwayne Johnson has been playing for the past ten years. Every single character acts like a doofus, a child, or both. Nudity and intimacy are portrayed through a bunch of stiff, awkward interactions where our main characters act like teenagers who are experiencing new feelings. Our story is set in this fictional narcos-state, but the generic score and glossy, bright cinematography refuse to create a distuingishable atmosophere. It's all so infantile and annoying, yet it somehow ended up with an R-rating. It's not trying to be a romcom like Romancing the Stone, it's not a swashbuckling adventure like Jumanji, it's this formless, nondescript thing that's made for everyone and therefore made for no one. The action is also really poorly staged and shot, I don't understand how this is the same director who made Banlieu 13 20 years ago (which is this interesting French parkour stunt reel/B-movie, I'd recommend watching that instead). The story is derivative and instantly forgettable, with every character dynamic or arc feeling lame and trite, but somehow that's the least of this movie's problems. Avoid at all cost.
1/10
This makes me miss 90s Alexander Payne. The Holdovers is a warm blanket film, and while it's one of the better films in that 'genre', I think it’s hard to argue for this being better than just fine. As per usual with Payne, its biggest strength is the (comedic) voice that's found in the dialogue, which is maybe surprising because he didn't write this one himself. The performances by Sessa and Giamatti are also really good, and I appreciate the effort of trying to capture the 70s through its filmmaking style. It's bound to become a new Christmas favourite because of the warmth and sentimentality, most of which is rightfully earned (he goes a little overboard with the score, but it's not a dealbreaker). I was thinking a lot about Dead Poet's Society when watching this, and the emotion here definitely feels more authentic by comparison. However, it just doesn't have much of a story to tell. There's not enough conflict or thematic depth to fill the overlong runtime here. The character dynamics, while not awful, feel familiar and safe. This leads to a problem that can be found in a lot of films like this, which is that filmmakers don't want to go to a place that's challenging or bold. The end result is recommendable, but if you'd take Payne's stamp out of it, this would be called out for being a schmaltzy Hallmark film.
6/10
The most straightforward genre film Fincher has made since Panic Room, and probably his goofiest effort since The Game. It’s not great, what’s really lacking here is that inventive spark that makes his best work tick. The script is generally cliche, repetitive, predictable and sometimes cheesy. That’s not entirely surprising given that the film’s based on a graphic novel, and thankfully the film is at the very least somewhat aware of its own shortcomings. For example, there are some really funny moments of dark comedy through the film’s use of cynical narration. I also feel like Fincher is self-inserting himself in Fassbender’s character here (it’s kinda obvious if you’re familiar with his other work), but that ultimately doesn’t lead to a new, unique insight. It’s not a secret metaphor for filmmaking or Fincher’s career, at least I’m not seeing that. At most it just feels like Fincher taking a laugh at himself. It’s also not really reinventing the wheel when it comes to the way that it explores the serial killer as a cinematic archetype. Instead, this movie is at its best when Fincher’s finding new ways to present familiar ideas. The set pieces are pretty decent, he still knows how to bring the tension, shoot with precision and use great sound design & score. His use of songs from The Smiths adds a cool stylish touch, or it comments on scenes in an ironic way. Again, the sum doesn’t add up to something special or unique, but because it's made with a lot of skill and sleek style, it doesn't feel as disposable as a lot of other films like it.
5.5/10
Competently made, but its discussion of gender politics feels disingenuous and unbalanced. The movie tries to get away with how it depicts male behavior by setting the movie in the Australian outback, but the major leaps it asks for still ring to me as false. There’s nothing wrong with the dialogue or acting, it’s entirely the fault of the direction and story. For what it’s trying to do, all of the characters are simply too one dimensional. That could work if you throw in a layer of artifice, like Barbie for example; however it stretches believability with this more realistic, grounded tone. As a result, a lot of of the (implied) tension didn’t really resonate with me either once it decides to go full thriller mode. Again, it’s not a terrible film, but it reeks of the wrong kind of feminism.
4.5/10
