This whole idea of transforming racoons would probably work seamlessly in a Miyazaki film, but with Takahata tone and artistic voice I find it a much harder sell. The absurdist, surrealist elements don’t entirely work together with Takahata’s realistic, depressing style. It also keeps the viewer at a distance by not having a proper main character, which leads to an increased use of expository narration. Still, it’s fairly charming and includes relevant themes about our relationship with the environment, nothing uncommon for Ghibli but still told in a fairly unique way that hits the right emotional notes. Technically fantastic as per usual, maybe the pacing could’ve been tightened a little as it gets slightly repetitive in places.
6/10
Pretty good portrayal of the mental disability known as the Fregoli delusion, but it could’ve used some more Charlie Kaufman. By his standards this is almost a mundane film, I wanted something slightly more bold and memorable. Still a lot of interesting, unique artistic choices that make this deserving of a recommendation (e.g. the singular male voice feels like a very intuitive choice), but it’s not my favourite project of his. Loved the cinematography, score and awkward tone, however the animation and design of the puppets are a little too off-putting for my taste. It sits between this awkward place of realism and surrealism, which fits with the theme of the film, but I think there are more appealing ways of portraying that visually.
6.5/10
It's whatever. Even in animation, Marvel Studios will find ways to make things look bland and impersonal. I don't care if the look is faithful to the original show, it should look way more detailed and bold, especially when there's money from Marvel Studios behind this project. Some of the parenting themes and horror influences feel very much targeted towards the audience who grew up with this show, but it's still combined with a simplistic plot, bright colours and a lot of campy, melodramatic lines. It's not fun enough for kids and simultaneously too empty/childish for adults. The balancing of all the different characters is pretty well done (it's not just the Wolverine show like a lot of the movies), but I'm very indifferent about the plot. The entire concept of the sentinels was handled with way more depth and care in a film like Days of Future Past, instead this is way more focussed on character drama, which is not as rewarding. It's watchable with nothing terrible in it, but the people praising it to high heavens need to go to nostalgia rehab. It's just another kids show, pump the breaks.
5/10
I agree with some of the other reviewers, it’s nothing special. Very predictable/formulaic as a romance, and the strong focus on singer-songwriter & folk music didn’t exactly blow me away either. I think it’s unlikely to impress a seasoned listener of this type of music, at least not for the extent that John Carney decides to focus on it. Most of its themes are handled more interestingly in a film like Inside Llewyn Davis, this doesn’t even come close to reaching that level of depth or emotion. Not that it tries to, this clearly wants to be more optimistic and carefree, but I’m kinda left wondering what the big deal is. Still, I appreciate the commitment to authenticity with the acting and filmmaking, even despite some of the camerawork being a little dodgy. Not the worst watch overall, but I think a viewer whose knowledge of this genre doesn’t run that deep will get more out of it.
4/10
Excellent, this is Burton’s best. A perfect combination of his style and 30s Hollywood. They reference Dracula a lot and it’s interesting how the lighting mirrors a lot of of those old Universal monster films. You don’t often see biopics that are directed like genre films, so this immediately stands out. The script is also really engaging, this isn’t another one of those Hollywood stories that’s mostly (or only) enjoyable for other filmmakers. It has fun with itself and doesn’t take itself too seriously, so it’s an entertaining ride from beginning to end. On top of that there’s also room for substance and more challenging emotions, which to me don’t really clash with the jovial tone. Thematically it’s about the creative struggle when paired with societal pressures for being different, it occupies a similar space as the work of an artist like David Bowie (the major difference being the quality of their work, of course). Fantastic characters and performances, everyone nails that stylized acting style. I’d go as far as to say that for everyone in the main cast you could argue its their best performance to date. Fantastic film.
9/10
As a piece of provocative entertainment, it's not the worst thing ever. It does have a style and personality, often using dark humor and smug narration to its benefit. However, this thing quickly starts to break down once you start to look at the ideas presented within. I don't disagree with the identified problem, but it's not that hard to pick up on all the fallacies, gaps in logic and emotional manipulation found in Moore's argumentation. He presents a severe lack of evidence to back up his claims, relying on the power of cinema to make his points for him (e.g. dramatic music; out of context clips to lazily frame Republicans as cartoonishly evil). There are still interesting tidbits of info here and there (such as the sections focussing on the military and military-industrial complex), but the unbalanced argumentation and factual errors make the end product come across as propaganda. Not recommended.
4/10
A very thorough explanation of institutional racism and the prison-industrial complex. There are a few topics where it could’ve gone more in depth (e.g. why does the black community often fall victim to using violence and crack cocaine?), but the picture that’s painted here feels pretty authentic and complete. The goal is to shock and infuriate, which are two emotions that are hard not to feel when watching this. The main problem is that it works better as a lecture than a piece of art. It’s way too preachy and eager to hold the hand of the viewer, at least for my taste. I generally prefer art with more subtlety or room for interpretation, and DuVernay uses every opportunity to tell you what to think through her editing style. Near the end it briefly turns into a Hillary Clinton endorsement ad, which kinda made my eyes roll. I also think it could’ve been more artistically creative, because besides the musical interludes there’s not a lot that stands out about the presentation. Nevertheless, I’d still recommend this based on substance alone, it seems like a very useful document for any class about modern history in particular.
6.5/10
Impossible to hate, feels very much like a Pixar movie. A simple story about solitude and friendship that hits all the right emotions. Its soulful melancholy and cute sense of humour will resonate with just about anyone, I think. Despite working with the silent film format, it’s still very good at building character and surprising the audience. It’s slightly overlong and repetitive in places, but as a story I like it. I also love the animation style and outstanding score, aesthetically it’s brewing with personality. There are a lot of different genres worked into the score (jazz, psychedelia, rock, disco), which is quite smart for a film where the music needs to do a lot of the heavy lifting. You can also tell they paid a lot of attention to the foley. Visually it’s a nice throwback to a more simplistic animation style. I do wish the character design was more distinct, however, because that’s a small area where the simplicity works against it. For example, Pixar’s really good at creating characters that are instantly recognizable from their design and that’s not so much the case here. Still, my gripes with this are fairly minor, it’s fun.
7/10
Pretty cool & distinct animation style, but I doubt I’ll remember much from this in the long term. As a story it’s simply way too formulaic, it uses every coming of age & sports movie trope in existence. On top of that I couldn’t get into the heavy-handed score and cheesy, overblown direction. It’s a game of basketball, we don’t need to pretend it’s the most epic thing ever with all the slo-mo, dramatic close-ups, inner monologues and J-rock. The interweaving flashbacks do a good job at fleshing out the characters, but again, it quickly becomes predictable and stale. The script reads like a draft a writer would come up with before they start experimenting with structure or arcs. I don’t know, maybe it hits harder for the intended teenager demographic, because I mostly see an empty film that tries way too hard to be cool and meaningful.
5/10
It reminds me of Lady Gaga. Clearly it’s campy and aware of its melodramatic trappings, but in the end it’s not in service of much. This isn’t really an attempt to deconstruct genre, nor does it include a theme or interesting commentary; it’s a pretty straightforward, kitschy thriller with too much of a soap opera vibe for my man brain to appreciate. A couple of its zesty moments are fun, but I found most of the dialogue quite dull. I could go into more detail, but clearly I’m not the target audience here, so I’ll keep it quick. Blake Lively understands the movie she’s making, Anna Kendrick plays the most annoying version of herself and Paul Feig isn’t putting in as much effort as he has in the past (terrible soundtrack & visually it looks like a Judd Apatow movie). I get the feeling Feig thinks the movie he’s making is a lot smarter than he thinks it is, but to me it felt lowbrow from beginning to end.
3/10
Funny, engaging and well made. It does carry that Monty Python signature of sophisticated silliness, but not in a way where it feels like the artists aren’t pushing themselves. I don’t think it’s Cleese’s best work by any means, but I still like we got his take on a simple, irreverent crowdpleaser. Great acting by everyone involved, I wouldn’t be surprised if Jamie Lee Curtis got her role in True Lies based on this. Filmmaking is quite good, maybe it could’ve used some trimming or stronger visual work, but I like that it stylistically embraces how English it is.
7.5/10
An incredibly fun genre movie that hits a wide range of emotions while never trivializing its own subject matter. Lots of fun scenes, quotable one liners, eclectic song choices and memorable characters. DiCaprio, Foxx, Jackson and Waltz are all scene stealers, Quentin continues to improve as a director (easily his strongest visual work until that point; the blending of genres feels seamless). There’s some stuff that could use trimming or should be cut entirely (e.g. the scene where Quentin himself cameos with a laughable Australian accent), and there are a few moments where the tone feels muddled, but overall it’s another strong outing in the director’s filmography.
7.5/10
I’ve never understood the cult love for this one. Really bland, predictable genre film that doesn’t bring anything to the table besides one iconic scene. The directing is a cheap knockoff of Greengrass’ Bourne films (lots of shaky cam/quick cut bullshit; generic score) and its script is about as by the numbers as you could get (typical set-up; predictable arcs; no real substance). Some of the detective stuff’s kinda fun but it relies so much on convenience and contrivances that I’d feel stupid for genuinely praising it. I wonder if its appeal for audiences mostly came down to seeing Liam Neeson do a film like this for the first time, because I just don’t see what’s interesting about its approach to action or storytelling. It’s not incompetent or anything (Liam Neeson keeps this thing watchable, that’s for sure), but this really should’ve been forgotten by now.
4/10
Really interesting, atmospheric depiction of Japan in this one. Wolverine dealing with the grief of Jean is a fitting arc following the X-Men trilogy, although even with this film you could already tell Mangold’s directorial sensibilities and Jackman’s excellent portrayal would benefit from an R rating. The cinematography and contained action sequences are also quite admirable. The problems lie mostly in the writing. For the first two acts it sets up this yakuza plotline, which is not very engaging because the script doesn’t know what to do with it. We’re splitting time between two equally uninteresting female co-leads, it sets up a romance in one scene that doesn’t go anywhere, we know way too early who the twist villain is going to be, there’s a lot of blunt exposition; it’s honestly quite forgettable. The acting from the cast surrounding Jackman isn’t all that strong either. During the third act it tries something different, but it kinda derails the whole movie. It’s a very schlocky, unsatisfying conclusion that reeks of studio meddling. All in all, it’s not a great movie, but you can see the seeds that would eventually give Mangold the idea for Logan.
4.5/10
I appreciate the director's trying something different, but he subtracts most of what makes the series work in the first place. The higher production values and serious tone draw attention to the fact that the movie's stupid and kitschy. Without the campy lens or Bruce Campbell it kinda becomes just another basic teen horror film, one with really bad acting, dialogue and characters. There's still some nice, atmospheric directing during the scenes in the forest, but most of this isn't very interesting or memorable. By comparison, the third act is a lot more fun because it pushes the film to a more gory, over the top place. It's unapologetically trashy, which I appreciate but it doesn't support much of the tone preceding it. I honestly think you'll get the most out of this experience by watching the final 20 minutes and pretending it's a short film.
4/10
Extremely tacky. Spastic editing, an assault of colour and sound, terrible acting (even McGregor, who survived George Lucas’ direction, completely sucks here), cringy dialogue and a lot of awful song choices which are meant to juxtapose the vaudeville aesthetic but don’t work. I almost respect it for being so unashamed about what it is, but it’s too annoying to demand any real respect. Over the top direction needs to be rooted in something, otherwise it’s just going to be kitschy. I guess that’s just the best way of summarizing it: none of this rings true, every genuine emotion is buried underneath endless layers of cheese. Avoid this overproduced mess at all cost.
1/10
I enjoyed it, but it’s loose to a fault. It’s one of those films where you could rearrange a lot of it and it wouldn’t make a difference, which is the type of issue a great hangout movie usually avoids. There are way too many characters, only a few of which are interesting. Linklater also goes way overboard with the amount of needle drops, some of which are too on the nose. Still, I loved the authentic portrayal of 70s teenagers, filmmaking, acting and most of all the very distinct voice that can be found in the dialogue. It’s quotable and somewhat memorable but it could’ve been a lot better with a stronger structure. I was reminded a lot of Licorice Pizza when watching this, which is another episodic coming of age film set in the 70s, yet I think that film works so much better because you have that central relationship which always remains the focus.
5.5/10
Lots of fun! This is how you update the silent film for modern audiences. It has a clear love for the films of that era, but the editing, pacing, sound and humour have a much more contemporary feel to it. The storytelling and characters, which is always the most challenging part with a film like this, are great. It really helps that the actors are all constantly aware of how their exaggerated performances have to be the main building blocks, therefore it has no awkward issues in regards to motivation, tone or characters arcs. I also really enjoyed the creative visual choices, there’s not a single moment where the inherent cheapness works against it. It’s just a very charming film with a lot of memorable gags throughout. Its appeal seem niche, but it has a genuine crowdpleasing quality to it. Come to think of it, maybe Hollywood should try something like this again instead of the meta, self referential comedies we’ve all become tired of.
8/10
I'm glad Edgar Wright is remaking this, because there are a lot great ideas hidden in this mediocre film. It feels like it's cut from the same cloth as a lot of Verhoeven's work during this time, there's a similar balance of action, sci-fi and satire of 80s excess. Arnold does what you want him to do, the funny cheesy lines are there, the worldbuilding is fine; it checks a lot of boxes. It's just not very memorable, this needed a stronger director, cinematographer and composer. Almost every action sequence suffers from overediting, a lack of wide shots and poorly composed synth & guitar music that fails to amp up the tension. The heavy use of smoke obscures the depth of field and the movie often feels more small scale because of it. It's also not that well paced, taking too long to get to the interesting part. I still like that we have a less serious take on this concept next to Battle Royale, The Hunger Games and Squid Game, but it's almost begging for a remake.
5/10
A half successful attempt at elevating trashy melodrama. It’s filled with great performances, terrific direction, amazing visuals and off kilter sound choices (which sometimes get overdramatic); any memorable moment can be attributed to those aspects. Loved any scene involving food or sex, which seems to be a speciality of Guadagnino. The narrative, however, isn’t all that strong. The corporate takeover subplot is pretty much devoid of any tension, whereas the main cheating/midlife crisis plotline also left me a bit cold (no real attempt to bring any substance to that, it’s not trying to be American Beauty). There’s an interesting turn at the end of act 2, but ultimately everything resolves in a fairly predictable way. It’s alright, nothing great. I’d probably hate it with a lesser director.
5.5/10
Just the most boring, corporate sludge. The script can’t balance all the different storylines, characters, nostalgia porn and corporate tie-ins. There’s a lot of stuff thrown at the wall and none of it is memorable. It keeps bringing in acclaimed comedians to prop up dull exposition scenes, but they’re given the worst material. For as childish as most of the comedy is, Kumail gets to riff with an extended BDSM bit (and even that’s not funny somehow). Most of the cast looks visibly bored, and there’s no personality to the direction. Just skip it, there’s no merit to this for those who can look past obvious pandering.
3/10
It’s not bad, but much like Donnie Brasco it could’ve been much better if Scorsese himself directed it. The camerawork and moral complexity of the story aren’t nearly as compelling as they could be. Furthermore, De Niro’s lack of experience really shows when he’s directing young kids. I can tell he put a lot of passion into this project, but besides checking the basic boxes there’s not a lot about it that stands out. Even at the time it must’ve felt stale and generic to a certain extent.
5/10
Pretty refreshing to watch this directly after some of Scott’s later work. It’s still too bombastic and artistically plain to call it great art, but I enjoyed the strong 90s stamp when watching it. I love how you can tell Cruise and McQuarrie studied this film for the opening scene of MI7. The solid acting and spectacle elevate a predictable, by the numbers script with weak characters. Still, the writing stands out because it doesn’t rely as much on cheese as a lot of other 90s entertainment. It’s more about the tension, which if fine because you can take the premise seriously (although I have next to no actual knowledge about submarines). I was impressed by how tactile everything taking place outside of the submarines looked. However, because of the weaker writing, it does take a while to get there. It’s not the type of film you could call a slow burn either, it’s just boring when it isn’t being operatic. Overall, a perfectly fine dad movie.
5.5/10
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
This is a bland action/thriller that could’ve been alright if Tony Scott just let Denzel do his thing. It’d still be way too long for how little this has to offer in terms of refreshing ideas (very predictable story and characters), but there are enough elements in place that could make for a passable film. Once the film gets going in the second half it doesn’t hold back and it leads to some entertaining moments. Unfortunately it’s also plagued by some of the tackiest editing I’ve ever seen in a film. I’ll defend the editing in the Bourne series any day, which was clearly working from a similar mindset as Scott, but this just turns that style up all the way. I can’t get on board with all the ugly colours, lens flares, flashing lights and incomprehensible action scenes. The use of cheap sound effects to punctuate every dramatic beat is also very tasteless. It’s like watching a mature Michael Bay who’s left the pornographic sensibilities behind but still doesn’t comprehend why his films suck.
4/10
Extremely well assembled, feels more like watching the latest A24 than a documentary. We're so used to documentaries breaking the fourth wall but that never happens here, it's edited like a regular narrative film. There's also no narration or handholding, it very much lets the viewer draw their own conclusions. They cast some really interesting individuals so I experienced a wide range of emotions watching this. Besides being very thought provoking it's cynical, humorous, sad and shocking. The different storylines complement each other well and paint a picture of its subject that feels complete and honest. Nevertheless, there are a few moments where the approach holds it back, such as a couple of scenes that are obviously scripted, which to me take away from the naturalistic approach. Nitpicks aside, this is a pretty amazing documentary. Highly recommended.
8.5/10
Reminded me of Dunkirk. Tense and memorable because of the presentation, but could've used stronger character development. I did enjoy the focus on a tragic experience like that revealing one's true character and it changing you as a person, similar to a film like Force Majeure. However, other times it can feel repetitive or predictable, it's not the most cinematic version of this type of story. Very much preferable over the Hollywood treatment, of course, but to me this is really carried by the sound and visuals. The ending leaves things on a heartwarming note, which is nice after all the misery preceding it.
6.5/10
Solid little horror movie, but there’s only few people I’d recommend it to. Very interesting concept with creative, abstract presentation, really loved the stop motion bits. It leans more towards the elevated horror side, lots of subtlety and challenging psychological aspects that will be more rewarding for an experienced viewer. The structure of it is fairly lean, and while I found the arc of the main character compelling, it could’ve used more character development (or stronger performances, I think everyone’s just fine). For a movie about artistry it pushes to some pretty bold places, even if the horror is sometimes played up a little awkwardly. What doesn’t help in that regard are the score and sound design choices, which to me feel like they come from a more commercial film. So, it’s nothing amazing but there are more than a few memorable moments.
5.5/10
Tarantino is infamous for borrowing a lot from obscure films, and Lady Snowblood's influence on Kill Bill is abundantly clear. However, calling one a rip-off of the other would be a bridge too far, this has its own distinct tone and directorial style. It's a very straightforward revenge story with just enough character depth to keep things interesting; a classic B-movie that's elevated by its distinct aesthetic and technical wizardry. Loved the action and editing, this filmmaker knows how long a shot needs to linger. It really helps the performances a lot, there's more subtlety here than you might expect. The combined samurai and western influence gives the visual style a very distinct personality, it really makes the set pieces (which are already well staged in their own right) memorable. I don't have any real complaints about it. Sure, it's not the most layered film ever made but unlike a lot of simple genre exercises this didn't bore me once. It pushes to emotion to some challenging places, it's creative, it's fun; watch it.
8/10
This is fine, I don’t think it needs to be held in much higher regard than The Walk. It benefits from everything being so cinematic and well documented, watching Phillipe do his thing never gets old. I enjoyed how it delves into the process, even if I wanted it to be more critical of the main character and all of the difficulties/challenges/potential consequences involved in pulling this off. The tone of the documentary leans towards the celebratory side and that doesn’t always bring out the most tension. There’s also a sense of theatricality to the storytelling (narration, reconstruction, music) that I don’t think serves the material. It’s still a fine watch, but once you get past the initial shock and awe there’s something empty about it.
6/10
