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
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
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
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
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
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
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
This is a movie for people who are into Woody Allen type stuff, it reminded me of Marriage Story in particular. The dialogue and acting are definitely the main driving force here, and Sandra Hüller delivers a pretty great performance. The core ideas that the movie gets at about relationships, guilt and justice are compelling, but it’s not always told in the most efficient way. The pieces ultimately click into place in an unexpected way, but it takes a clunky, elaborate set-up to get there. Tightening up the beginning and very end would’ve improved the experience a lot for me, mostly because I wouldn’t have to hear that stupid 50 Cent song 80 times. Moreover, due to the story structure and constraints of a legal drama, the movie suffers from an overabundance of exposition. There are so many scenes where I wish they’d just cut to whatever the characters are talking about, instead of a boring close-up with someone reminiscing over a memory. I’m also not the biggest fan of how the courtroom scenes were staged, some elements are on the cheesy side. The prosecutor in particular felt like a Suits character, he doesn’t work for me in this more realistic context. Finally, the technical aspects of this movie are just fine. As is often the case with movies like this, the cinematography is competent but lacking in style or vision, nor is the score very noteworthy. All in all, it’s adequate but the accolades are completely overblown.
6/10
This has everyone involved play to their strengths. It's another tale of Scorsese deconstructing the myth of the American dream, but with a thematic approach I found quite refreshing for him. The way that the film tackles racism, and how it's tied to issues of money, power, greed, trust and systemic injustice, feels authentic and well constructed. It's a movie that's unsettling and will leave a mark on your brain emotionally, you should know that going in. De Niro has a lot of fun playing a sinister crime boss with a wholesome facade, it's a performance that could be compared to Giancarlo Esposito in Breaking Bad. DiCaprio is always at his best when playing a pathetic dumbass, and he also shines here. It almost feels like he's in Tarantino mode, it's not similar to any of the previous work he's done with Scorsese. Yet, despite both of Scorsese's go-to actors having prominent roles here, it's actually Lily Gladstone who ends up delivering the most emotional, subtle performance. Technically the movie is pretty much flawless. The production design, lighting, cinematography and score are all immaculate, and despite the long running time, Thelma Schoonmaker’s editing kept me engaged for the entire runtime. However, the pacing is still somewhat of an issue. As Scorsese has matured as a filmmaker, the choices he's making are becoming more and more understated. The tracking shots and montages are still here, but they're less energetic and he's relying more on pauses instead. There's nothing wrong with that, given that the substance carries the movie, but with a movie this long I want a little more pop. There's one scene involving fire that'll stay with me, as well as another couple of haunting moments, but besides that he's not turning up the intensity too much. It would've been nice if the movie ended with an extended courtroom scene where all the actors get to really show off with some incredible dialogue, for example. This movie still ends in a pretty weird way, having some creative use of what are essentially ending title cards, but it involves a major tonal shift that didn't work for me. Finally, I thought Brendan Fraser's performance was flat out bad, showing up for a small part and overacting every line. All in all, while I do recommend this movie, I don't think it's a masterpiece. Martin 'this is cinema' Scorsese would probably hate me for saying this, but given the pacing issues, there's an argument to be made it would've worked better as a miniseries.
7/10
Honestly, this could’ve been a banger if it was given to the team behind Bodies, Bodies, Bodies, or just a real filmmaker. It’s a great idea that deserved better than the cheap streaming treatment. This is very poorly made (really bland, uninspired cinematography; multiple cheap looking camera affects; the horror elements are tame and undercooked), incompetently written (no tonal control or proper focus; clunky exposition; too much unnecessary melodrama) and the acting styles are all over the place. It’s also another one of those recent comedies where I find almost every character annoying and too hysterical, which (from what I can tell) is not always intentional. Is this just what people find funny nowadays? There’s so little bite or edge that I’d probably find it even more lame if I were the same age as the target demographic. Granted, it does have a few good observations about all the different ways a zoomer would be triggered by 80s culture (overt racism, sexism, etc.), but for every sharp moment there are twice as many lazy references to the same pop culture artifacts found in every other movie banking on 80s nostalgia. Maybe it should’ve looked a little further ahead for inspiration, as I’ve always found Scream to be the bar when it comes to horror comedies primarily aimed at teenagers. This isn’t even remotely close to approaching that level, instead this feels like an 80s slasher/Back to the Future mashup watered down for a Disney channel audience.
2/10
Round 3 of Gareth Edwards proving he’s a great visual director that doesn’t know how to breathe life in his scripts. Its best asset is easily the worldbuilding, combining influences from other science fiction material to create a new world that feels fresh. The technical execution is also really well done, with its cinematography and CGI being among some of the most visionary stuff I’ve seen since Avatar 2. Unfortunately, the sci-fi concepts this is working with are stale, it’s all stuff you’ve seen before and the movie doesn’t know how to put its own creative spin on it. Add to that a bunch of characters that aren’t written in the most compelling way (as well as bland, understated performances that will keep everyone questioning whether JDW is actually a good actor), and you have a movie that’s already pretty dull from the start. Now, a big saving grace of Rogue One and Godzilla were their strong climaxes, however that’s not the case here. Instead, The Creator starts to rush to the finish line, which leads to the big emotional beats not hitting the mark. It’s like the pacing of this movie is constantly either rushing or dragging, annoying my inner Terence Fletcher in the process. Overall, while I’d love to champion this as the savior of original science fiction, there’s not much more originality here than a typical franchise film. I don’t want to call Edwards another Zack Snyder, because I think he’s certainly more talented, but he’s suffering from the same problems and doesn’t seem to learn from his previous mistakes.
5/10
Barbenheimer: Part 2 of 2
This was never going to be a your average summer blockbuster given the incredibly overqualified cast and crew involved. However, having just finished it, I am still blown away by how far they pushed it. Is it too highbrow and intellectual for its own good? Maybe, I don't see this gaining universal praise from the general audience, but I'd say that's a good thing. I have yet to come across an accurate read of this film by the online outrage economy (or middle aged nerdy Youtube critics, for that matter), so perhaps it's not as preachy or on the nose as thought by some. This thing is directed with such vision and precision, for my money it's the boldest blockbuster I've seen in a long time. Gerwig and her team truly knock it out of the park here: the set design for Barbieland is amazing and colorful (the shitty lighting and lack of liquids are great touches), the campy-yet-sincere humor feels very fresh, there are interesting references to filmmakers like Jacques Tati and Wes Anderson, it has razor sharp commentary and so many memorable scenes. The script feels well read and clever, taking its obvious influences (The Truman Show, The Lego Movie, Toy Story and Elf, to name a few) in a different direction than what's expected. It proves that you can still use meta and self-referential tropes as long as they're executed tastefully. It's also brewing with themes and subtext, trusting the viewer to read between the lines and find the detailed nuances in the script (well, for the most part). Will Ferrell doesn't even serve a real narrative purpose, but conceptually he makes the film a lot more interesting. During the third act it occasionally starts to spell things out a little too much through clunky monologues, which I'd argue is its only real flaw. Besides that, I thought this was a blast. Robbie, Gosling and Ferrera all deliver nuanced, funny and at times emotional performances, there's not a single dull moment and it's one of the rare blockbusters where the production value actually shows up on the screen. Major props to Robbie and Gerwig as producers for getting it made, I almost can't believe some of this stuff survived Mattel’s pr division as well as the Hollywood system.
8.5/10
Really simple and to the point, but none of that matters when you can squeeze that much emotion into such a short runtime. Visually, I would call this a masterpiece. I can tell you at least five directors who were directly influenced by this film stylistically (e.g. Aronofsky, Haneke, Noé) which is probably because it’s so good at portraying subjectivity through the editing, lighting and camerawork. The score is also really great, taking clear cues from the Berlin school of electronic music, which fits really well with the tone and atmosphere of the rest of the film. The film understands that true horror is conveyed through filmmaking and atmosphere, not dumb loud noises or cheap shock value. It has its fucked up moments, but they’re not over the top. The acting by Erwin Leder is excellent and he’s completely believable as this emotionally unhinged individual. The film presents us with a character study of his mind, and while it succeeds, there are some clear issues with the exposition. For example, the film starts with this inelegant information dump giving us the backstory of our character, which is unnecessary for this particular story. There’s also continuous inner monologuing throughout the film, which you also don’t need because Leder’s performance already communicates most of what’s being said. It’s like the filmmakers were afraid of the main character potentially being uninteresting, and I don’t get that because everything else is handled with such confidence.
8.5/10
Look you don’t have a lot to work with here, so this is probably as good as it could be. I like it more than the live action adaptations from the 2010s, that’s for sure. The plot and characters are nothing special, it’s really the stylistic animation and score that carry the entire movie. I also quite liked the voice acting, the turtles all feel distinct and I’m not surprised that Ice Cube’s expressive voice (given his background) works really well for animation. The problems start to reveal themselves as soon as you start to pay attention to the material that the actors are working with. The comedy mostly sucks and tries way too hard, as expected for mainstream American movies now. Some of the banter and dialogue felt like it got a pass by Marvel’s staff, it’s that embarrassing. It also has some of the weirdest, out of place pop culture references I’ve seen in a long time (you’ll know when you see them), as well as 90s needle drops that serve no purpose besides serving up empty nostalgia (seriously, even Transformers: Rise of the Beasts had the decency to at least set their film during the 90s). Its moments of action can be fun, but unfortunately it zips through a lot of them by montage during the first half, which was the wrong choice. The second half is definitely more entertaining in that regard. Overall, I don’t recommend this if you’re past the age of its target audience, but the beautiful visuals definitely made it more palatable compared to other movies like it.
5/10
For a while, I was very confused if this is supposed to be set in the 70s, 90s or present day. Then, once you realize how the film is satirizing the blaxploitation genre, that falls into place. The story also clearly references the 80s, in particular some of the same films that inspired Jordan Peele’s work. Like Peele, the film has some undertones dealing with themes of racial inequality. Really love how it’s made, the lighting and cinematography feel very Donald Glover-esque, but even more lo-fi and grainy. The score and soundtrack, given the wide scope of influences, is very diverse (hip-hop, funk, synthwave), but they somehow never clash. It’s very easy to get attached to the characters because they’re a lot of fun to watch, the film knows how to capitalize on the natural charisma of Jamie Foxx. Parris and Boyega are pretty good too, it’s really their banter and acting that sells a lot of scenes. Yet, for as entertaining as it can be, it didn’t hold my attention all the way through. I feel like it’s one major re-edit away from being great. The concept is a bit too thin to build a 2 hour movie around, so scenes go on for longer than they need to and there’s some unnecessary fat. I also wanted more unpredictability from the story, as a lot of its reveals are familiar if you pick up on the influences I mentioned earlier.
6.5/10
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
For a second summer in a row, the only essential action blockbuster of the summer is brought to us by Tom Cruise. Right from the opening scenes, this movie announces itself as another reinvention of the MI franchise. Dutch angles, cheesy & overdramatic dialogue, funny Russian accents, a ridiculous threat that feels like an exaggeration of our biggest contemporary fear; wait a minute, this is a 90s action movie! Yes, in many ways this film is approached in the exact opposite way as Fallout. It doesn’t have those same smart, intricate, Christopher Nolan-esque sensibilities, instead this movie fully embraces and emphasizes the silly, ridiculous nature of the franchise. If MI 2 operates at the same level of cheese as the most recent Fast and Furious films, this is more in line with something like Fast Five. I think some audiences will have a preference for the sensibilities of Fallout, but to me both approaches are equally as valid when done right, which it is here. The set pieces are once again outstanding (the train and Rome chase are instantly memorable), Hayley Atwell is a fantastic, charismatic addition to the franchise (MI’s gotten really good with female characters), it’s funny and there’s genuine emotional heft. It makes a bold decision in regard to one of its characters that I wouldn’t have made as a writer, but let’s see where the story takes us. I’m not entirely in love with the cinematography, because the lighting and framing don’t have as much style as the previous 3 installments, and I think the excessive Dutch angles are a bit hokey in 2023. It’s also not the best MI script by any means. Sometimes it asks for too much leeway (Shea Whigham conveniently shows up in all the right places; Rebecca Ferguson randomly shows up during the Rome sequence; Zola has never noticed Vanessa Kirby’s very striking eye colour?) and Esai Morales’ character feels underwritten. Overall, I wouldn’t rank this as one of the best missions, but given the fact that this franchise currently finds itself in the conversation of best franchises of all time, that’s not an insult whatsoever.
7.5/10
This is so bland and inessential, they might’ve as well put it directly on Disney Plus. Why are we investing 300 million dollars in an action/adventure flick starring an 80 year old grandpa? Look I have a lot of respect for Harrison Ford, but everything that’s wrong with this movie is connected to the larger issue of him and the franchise being way past their expiration date, so this never should’ve been greenlit in the first place. Nothing is offensively bad here, but it’s more a case of wrong decisions piling onto each other.
I understand Lucasfilm’s decision to hire a director who just delivered two crowdpleasers in a row, both of which were acclaimed by normies and snobs alike. Mangold understands what makes the world and character work, but he doesn’t get the soul. Right from the opening scene, the movie looks drab, underlit and generic. There’s almost no imagination to the set pieces, and some of the more impressive stuntwork is undone by poor effects work. Take the Tuctuc chase. Ford’s stunt double puts in the work for the wide shots, but when you cut to a close-up of characters in front of a green screen, you’re not exactly selling the sequence. It’s not going to stick on my brain, it’s too unremarkable. Again, what’s the point of making an Indiana Jones movie if there’s no viscera or imagination to the action?
Then there’s the story, which is also very by the numbers and low on risk. It feels like wheel spinning, which in theory could be fine (the Bond franchise got away with that for decades) but there’s nothing to hold my interest. Some of the new mechanics introduced during the third act I found to be underwhelming, and this is coming from someone who didn’t mind the inclusion of aliens in the last film. All of the new characters are boring and underdeveloped (especially the villain), despite the actors putting in decent performances. It’s quite funny how this suffers from the same problem as Furious 7, where villains will show up on the same location as our heroes despite there being no story reason for it. Occasionally there’s a brief fun interaction, or a fun set, or a good visual idea (like the final shot, for example), but that’s not enough to fill its bloated runtime.
4/10
Scale it down, Wes. I’ve been a fan of everything he’s done since Fantastic Mr. Fox, and this is the first one in a long time that doesn’t sit well with me. It’s easily his loosest film since The Darjeerling Limited, and as a result he kinda lost sight of a coherent narrative here. It simply has too many characters, and while they’re all decently interesting, none of the arcs are developed to a point where I felt an emotional pay-off. The postmodern/meta stuff tanks the pacing and adds little to the overall narrative. There’s an attempt to use that layer to give the film a deeper meaning in the third act, but it feels like an anticlimax. The deeper meaning is that there is no deeper meaning, we’re just putting on a show . Ok? Did Rian Johnson have input on this script? Is this Wes trolling the people who claim that he’s style over substance? Add to that that this is one of his films that relies the least on comedy, and I can only conclude that this might just be his weakest screenplay. The reason why I still like it, however, is mostly because of the technical aspects. The cinematography, set design, editing and music are all fantastic and I’m continuously amazed by how this man is able to build a complete, original world for every new film. There’s always enough quirk and detail in the frame to keep the movie alive. The acting’s also really solid, I don’t quite get the complaint from some people that it’s emotionless. While the delivery is as deadpan as ever, the actors add plenty of emotion though the tone and cadence of their voice. Overall, I think he really needs to stop worrying about topping the scale of his last film, because it’s making him lose focus as a director and writer. It’s enjoyable, but for me it’s his worst next to The Life Aquatic.
6/10
You can’t be too harsh on it, these genuinely try to raise the bar for one take action sequences. The excessive panning and shaking makes some of the stitching feel a little artificial, to the point where I kinda wonder if it would look better if it was done with a couple of actual long takes and cuts, but it continues to be a successful tool for making the action more immersive. Some of the action that involves cuts doesn’t lose much of its visceral impact or tension, which is the highest compliment to any action scene. It’s nice to see humans portrayed as vulnerable in an action movie for once, which is often forgotten about in this genre that’s nowadays becoming more and more influenced by videogames. However, everything else is pretty forgettable junk. It’s mostly watchable because the actors, which are a lot better than the average B-movie action flick. However, this is the type of script that demands a true visionary director in order to make the movie work as a whole, and Hargrave is just not at that level as a filmmaker or storyteller. I think I made similar comments in regards to Extraction, but he should really shoot second unit for someone like George Miller, Gareth Evans or Edgar Wright instead. This is overall very stale visually, sonically and conceptually.
4.5/10
A total mess. It's another example of contemporary filmmaking where making an actual movie is at the bottom of the priority list. It's pure corporate drivel that won't be remembered by anyone in the long run. However, for a brief moment, it tricked me into thinking that it wasn't going to be like that. In fact, I quite liked the opening action sequence. Sure, visually it's already not up to snuff, but the weird ideas and energy of the scene totally won me over. Once it gets into the actual story, it immediately flies off the rails and never recovers. To start off, it has a massive problem with delivering exposition, so much so that every crucial piece of information is repeated at least twice for the dummies in the audience. Ben Affleck and Kiersey Clemmons make a quick cameo in order to spell out the character arc of Barry in the film through clunky dialogue. It turns out the actual meat of the story revolves around Ron Livingston and Maribel Verdú, who play Barry's parents. A good movie would realize that this is the emotional heart of the story, the thing that should be the main focus of its multiverse/time travel set-up. Instead, this movie sets that stuff aside and turns into an exercise of branding and dopamine. Think Spider-man: No Way Home, but somehow it makes even less sense. So much of the pandering here comes off as pathetic and desperate. I like Michael Keaton's portrayal of Batman in the Burton movies as much as the next guy, but when you cut here from him flying like a plastic doll, to his stuntman kicking ass, to a close-up of old, wrinkly, post-Birdman Michael Keaton, I can't help but laugh. Let's turn his character into a joke and give him long hair for the introduction scene (in order to conveniently hide the stuntman), only to make him look like regular Michael Keaton two scenes later when barely any time has passed. Let's put in a beat where Supergirl leaves the group for one scene without any clear motivation. Let's make sure Keaton says the line about going nuts, who cares if it makes any sense. It’s all painfully stupid and hits one shallow emotion after the next. Sometimes it tries to be funny, there's a surprising amount of slapstick in this. It's different than the snarky lines and bathos we're used to in superhero movies, which is nice, but I only chuckled twice and cringed at most of the other stuff. The movie weaves in the origin story of Barry, which is a neat idea, but this means we get to spend time with the 18 year old version of Barry Allen, hands down the most annoying character you're going to see at the movies this year. It was pretty smart to retcon Miller's abysmal Justice League performance into a character arc, but both versions of the character here are still incredibly obnoxious. The performance is godawful, almost every line that comes out of their mouth sounds phoney and overacted (no, my personal feelings regarding Miller have zero influence on this). I can't really comment on any of the other performances or characters (Shannon, Calle), because their appearances are too brief to leave a genuine impression. Everything leads to a rushed third act that has no problem breaking its own logic in regards to time travel, and it goes completely nuts with the amount of pointless fan service. It even introduces another villain out of nowhere, all before wrapping up the story in a way that barely feels like a resolution for anything. The (clearly reshot) ending scene ensures that this wasn't entirely spinning its wheels, but a lot of stuff still gets no pay-off. In terms of filmmaking, this is also pretty disastrous. Yes, the green screen and PS3 graphics are terrible, but more importantly this movie isn't even capable of putting two Ezra Miller's on the screen in a convincing way, which is a type of visual trick that got perfected back in the 90s. The framing and lighting often enhance the visuals looking like plastic, and this gets particularly bad in the third act: the staging, blocking and editing are an incoherent mess. Finally, the music is unmemorable and sounds like a poor man's Danny Elfman. I don’t understand the decision to omit the Flash theme from the Justice League film, which was the only memorable bit from that soundtrack (and composed by Elfman, no less). Maybe the filmmakers wanted to distance themselves from the theatrical cut, but then why is this movie insisting that this is the first time Barry runs back in time? That’s already canon in the director’s cut. Just so many baffling decisions with this one. You should do yourself a favor and just (re)watch the earlier seasons of the tv show, there's nothing to be gained by investing your time in this trainwreck.
2.5/10
