Less an action-thriller film and more a film about a girl tagging along a professional killer.
There's barely any action until the last 15 minutes of the film - and it's not a well-executed Hollywood action (the SWAT team in particularly are tactically dumb). But the film's charm is not in action but in the relationship between Leon (Jean Reno) and Mathilda (Natalie Portman). Both performances are really good with the emotionally challenged Leon and young girl mistaking her feelings with a guardian for love. I watched the extended/director's cut where the film fleshes out fully the sexual tension between Leon and Mathilda (and Leon's continuous attempt to brush Mathilda's advances).
There's nothing really new in the writing or the plot, but I like that Leon doesn't take the traditional route of Hollywood action with the protege taking their master's mantle. It's literally just two persons trying to bond in a difficult situation they're facing. It's a very grounded film, albeit at times a bit stiff here and there, made by the great performances between the two casts and supporting role by Gary Oldman which buffoonery really contrasts the two and sometimes put the thrill back into the film. The only criticism is that, despite the excellent French-esque score, the music directing can be a bit strange at times, especially in the beginning, but it still hits the right note when Leon and Mathilda's scenes are on the focus.
The difficulty in watching classics is to judge them fairly in the time they were released.
The positive side is, while I have limited knowledge of 1980s animation, it is not too hard to see how the Akira excels in the animation quality, even today, particularly in the very first sequences with Kaneda's Capsule gang driving though the city night lights, and the climax with Tetsuo's blowing up to a gigantic mass and the extradimensional inflection with the ESPs.
The excellent animation is used masterfully for conveying the atmospheric world-building: the sky-high lives of Neo Tokyo with a drab scummy lives of its citizens, brutal police forces, and economic insecurities painting the world bleak. Perhaps the strongest aspect of this film that I wished they could've took us a walk a little bit further like the politician Nezu took us in a stroll around the city. And like Blade Runner, watching through the film I recognised how the plot points and the themes raised in this film would later be used very familiarly in many other science-fiction films, thus setting up the cyberpunk genre in the years to come.
However, speaking of plot and story, I would say that perhaps writing is not the aspect this film shines on. Characters leave much to be desired. They feel like devices for the plot to move forward, even with our main characters Kaneda and Tetsuo, and even the McGuffin Akira.
While I appreciate the film doesn't blurt out everything and treat the audience as smart, some genuine questionable plot points left me wondering: why did the ESPs lure a certain character? What was really the reason of the rebellion? What's the point of the last sequences with politician Nezu and the opposition Ryu? The film seems to save some points for a future setups (that seem to be never realized) and the awkward fade to blacks between scenes and unexplained sequences made me feel like I'm missing out something and have to check Wikipedia - something that I realize later that I have to find out in the source material (manga).
As the credit rolled, my mind wander, not unlike Tetsuo's, the possibility of remake (even a live action one) that could amplify the excellence of this film and connect the half-painted tods. That being said, Akira is still a masterful cornerstone of science fiction/cyberpunk material that deserves at least a watch in a lifetime.
If you plan to watch this because everyone keeps saying how this film is "different" from MCU films, stop right here.
That's a false advertisement. It's not a "black and white monster film from the '40s". Werewolf by Night is an MCU film through and through. There's nothing "different". Let me list:
And those are just from the top off my head. Sure you can find more if you're observant.
Well, sure Werewolf by Night is dressed in black and white but that's about it. It's a gimmick. It's not even trying to capture the essence of classic black and white films The Artist (2011) did it or build the atmosphere like Sin City (2005) did it. People saying this film is "different" from MCU needs to get their eyes checked and watch more films.
If you just wanted to watch an MCU, sure you get what you asked. But if you expected more, then whatever you heard about this film is a big fat hoax.
A slow-burn methodical drama telling the story of a man trying to find meaning in his life through a discovery of his superpower. Though labeled as 'superhero film', this film has none of the usual flick: no fast-paced action, quippy jokes, or comical heroism. Like Mr. Glass (Sam Jackson's character) says: it is like a real life. Film has excellent acting, family drama, and character interpersonal relationships woven into the plot seamlessly. It is a Shyamalan drama as per usual with the characters' superpower in the background - you don't even get to see plenty of superhero action until the last 15 minutes. And that's good.
Best part of the film is its slow build up revealing the final sequences: great lines and twists, just like Sam's comic book story has in the beginning of the film.
A historical naval war movie with good production value, nice cast, but a subpar screen writing.
As an admiral who famously defended the Korean strait with only 12 ships against 300+ Japanese adversaries, Yi Sun-Shin isn't written as an interesting character. His speech to boost the morale of his soldiers doesn't inspire any confidence, and his tactical genius doesn't really shine. 10 of his 12 ships fleet only show up in the last 15 minutes of the battle - which is strange, since his "turning fear to courage" tactic is supposed to bring more people into the battle. He really carried the whole battle by himself/his flagship, relying only on pure luck (whirpool, sea tides, and random clamoring of escaping civilians) and one small support from his XO.
In a similar vein, the Japanese antagonists are not written that interestingly. They're nothing but brute invaders. Either they're scaredy cats (Kato et al) or incompetent commanders who think too highly of themselves (Kurushima). The final battle scene, both against Kurushima and against the remaining Japanese fleet, feels really anticlimactic. The supposedly competent Kurushima just charges against storming arrows and the rest of the Korean ships somehow manage to barge against the remaining Japanese fleet relatively unscathed (and that's a lot of ships to barge).
And while the naval combat is good, the close combat sequences leave much room for improvement. You do get them interspersed within the naval battles.
Last, the last 15 minutes of the 1 hour battle scene is just full wishful thinking like what you typically see in Korean war movies regardless of setting, unfortunately. This is a shame since the event it's based on is a turning tide (pun intended) that merits a glorious depiction.
To sum it up: the first hour (story and drama building) is a-okay, the next 45 minutes is good war movie (war starts exactly after 1 hour), the next 15 minutes is anticlimactic and unsatisfying, and the rest 8 minutes is just happy ending and credits.
Still a worthwhile watch just for the production value alone though. :)
Another entry in MCU lineup of fanservices.
Script is written like the characters are actors talking to audience instead of something that would make sense to the characters in their world, e.g. what's with all Peters knowing about multiverses out of nowhere. Even the dialogues between the superheroes and villains all serve as nothing but nostalgia factor, assuming viewers immediately get the references. The brief dialogue between Electro and Garfield's Peter about "black Spider-Man" could've been a good commentary but it ends up as the kind of "yeah you know we're going to bring another cool Spidey in the future" plot device typical of MCU.
The whole Peter ganging up together is a lot of missed opportunity; they just instantly bonded out of nowhere. Saying they're like 'brothers' is overselling it.
Rewatching this in 2022, I can understand the bad review. The casting is kinda weird: John Clarke doesn't look like a battle-hardened leader John Connor despite the scars; Jai Courtney is too quippy, playful, and easily distressed/panicked as a soldier growing up in the midst of war Kyle Reese; and Emilia Clarke doesn't have the charisma as Sarah Connor, despite being depicted as being accustomed to armaments and combatant training. It's kinda jarring too seeing her easily adapting to 2017 for a person that lived in 1984.
Other than that, like the other reviewers have said, the story can't be treated as a standalone film due to "the past has changed" thing going on, but at the same time it plays out pretty much like a standalone, non-Terminator action film. Which is fine btw, since the action is quite good. It still tries to stay true thematically to the first film - the future is not set in stone - but I'm not sure, but the story, alongside the casting/performance, is not the film's strongest suite.
I gave this a 8 during my first watch, for the third now I'll say it 6.5 or 7 at best.
Space adventure film that starts on a high note but falls through in the second half. Have a nice world-building (I really liked the fact that here space age is multilingual) but suffers from terrible plotline. I don't have qualms with the plot being generic; the problem is it's rushed, incomplete, and tacked on.
The film follows a group of ragtag space scavengers (space sweepers) trying to make ends meet when they found a McGuffin (Dorothy) and try to figure out what to do with her.
Pretty decent premise to start the film with. In fact it did start with a banger space sequence where the scavengers race for getting the biggest haul to sell. However it had been off right from the start: the scene that preceded the scavengers competition was an exposition on how the big bad corporation has profited from the working classes and they struggle to make ends meet while the wealthy live a safe space life above the decaying earth. The exposition felt odd because right after that speech we get to see the lives of those working classes they talked about - and it was far from being meager and difficult. The good makeup of the casts don't help selling the 'tough life' narrative either.
The inconsistencies portrayed are consistent across the film, like it's struggling with the theme it's trying to portray. More than once the film tries to portray how our protagonists are being held hostage by debts (big numbers were shown), but then at one and another plot points (especially in the second half where it became pivotal to the climax), they just brushed it off, especially for the sake of portraying the protagonists' heroic comeback.
In a similar fashion, for a film that claims to be a critique against capitalism, the plot does not seem to understand how capitalism devalues the labor of the workers. For starters, the most obvious one is the absurdly ridiculous' plan of the villain to blow up Earth and blame it to the terrorist organization wherein Earth is where they get their workers. That's just complete nonsense only to make the villains appear cartoonishly/comically evil.
Speaking of villain, the big bad here is depicted to be a superhuman with some kind of power but we never get to see what it's supposed to be. They also hint that the villain exhibits some sort of contrived biological-determinist, utilitarian philosophy which seems to hint that actually it's not really about social class anyway, but "genetic defects"; however due to it being unnecessarily complicated and tacked on, it seems to serve as nothing more than a plot device to say that there is inequality. It kind of downplays the supposed critique against capitalism the film claims to have.
And speaking of tacked on... well, the film has a lot of it. The supposed terrorist organization turns out to be an "environmentalist" who just wants Earth to recover. What exactly they do to make that happen and why they are hunted are not exactly clear. The climax where the big bad's plan got revealed and leaked is kind of dumb and forced. You would imagine a multibillionaire who owned the conglomeration of media (they even mentioned this) would've prepared a PR spin and better security to not let his evil plan got out of his chambers. No way his fans would believe that "leak" instantly. See how Vought did it in The Boys or how Mao-Kikowksi did it in The Expanse. And, like I said before, the critique of capitalism itself feels really weak.
Okay, okay, some might say that it's a space action adventure film and plot isn't their strongest suite. So what about the action itself?
Choreography is bad, if not nonexistent at all. In the climax where our heroes fought the big bad's head of goons, there's almost no fight at all. It's just some camerawork when the hero got punched, another camerawork, then suddenly the hero turned the table and boom, she's dead. Other fight scenes are similar. Most of them consist of people getting beaten one-sidedly with no resistance from the other side. And there's one hilariously bad scene where Tae-ho (Song Joong-ki) who's supposed to be a child soldier, a prodigy who commanded the elites of the private army Space Force got cornered by a bunch of unarmed merchants, scavengers, and environmentalists who I assume have less combat experience than him.
The space fight and dogfight are no better. Well, the initial scavenger race is a banger, I give them that. But the others are not good. Especially not the final fight. Our protagonists and their allies of scavengers got the plot armor when they have to fight against squadrons of elite private army. Nobody died there except the baddies. Complete nonsense - makeshift spacetrucks' hull can survive better than elite spacefighters? They can maneuver better than train soldiers?
That being said,
The CGI is really good. Feels like Hollywood films, including the camerawork and all. World-building is quite rich and could serve as a good basis for a franchise. They have a trans robot and toy with the idea a little bit - a very refreshing take of the portrayal which would be loved by anyone familiar with cyberpunk and transhumanism genre.
The performances of the main casts are also good. Richard Armitage really sells his role as the big bad and Jin Sun-kyu as that tough uncle you can depend on. You can disregard the supporting casts though - they all feel really wooden. And despite trying to be on par with Hollywood films, I like that they still have the awkwardly Asian jokes (like fussing over how to bathe a toddler) and comically archetypical characters (the rebellious girl type, the prodigy type, the tough uncle type, the chattery overly concerned aunt type, and of course the child McGuffin).
Other than that there's not much to say about the film. It's a decent ride if you have almost 2,5 hours to spare, maybe during family gatherings. But I'm not going to revisit the film anytime soon. Well, maybe except to take screenshots.
I think the most interesting part about alternative history is imagining in what ways that the trajectory of history would differ from our own. Asking if it would be plausible for women in this timeline to fly and be astronaut is a wrong question; the better question to ask is how.
This episode takes "Soviet launching women on Mars" as its turning point among others - and it leaves more to be desired, as I wondered how the political climate that Gordo mentioned in passing (civil rights movement), the USA at the state of decline, and the "race for the base" would've factored in this decision. Since this show so far has not been a political thriller/drama, the questions remain unanswered and left as an exercise for the viewers, and that's fine I think. The episode instead focused on character relationships: between the Nixen Vixens (as one commenter put it) and between the other already established characters.
Although some parts of it are rather tacked on (the fanmail scene especially), it was interesting to see how Tracy was downplayed as "astro wife" due to the tokenistic demand by "the upstairs", her struggle overcoming it, and her conflict with Gordo. The bait and switch at the end is also nice with Tracy struggling with the exercises and the reveal at the end.
The best part however comes from the very 70-ish naming ("Moon Maiden" and "Meteor Maid"? Fancy) and the discovery of ice on the surface of the moon. Seems like it's getting scifi-ish from here.
Decent pilot. The episode takes its time to introduce the characters and possible tension. It pays off in the last half of the episode - the landing sequences is quite tense - however I think the episode could've asked a better alternative history if the landing actually fails. Still wonder where they will take us from here though.
This is certainly not The Boys' strongest season finale. The plots feel awkwardly resolved and the key plot points they've been developing just ended up as nothing. It feels really underwhelming. Of course there are some positive notes about this finale as well but bear with me, let's go through three most crucial problems for me.
First, Black Noir. What a disappointment. They've been building up Black Noir for at least four out of eight episodes in this season. They even showed him as a person, a real individual with emotion and vivid imagination this season after the previous two he had only been a mute killing machine. And he went down just like that. Sure the conversation between him and Homelander was tense - but that was it. Unfortunately, Black Noir's imaginative flashback, as I've suspected in the previous episodes, serve as nothing more than plot device to move the story forward.
Second, Soldier Boy. The hunt for the ultimate weapon to destroy Homelander ultimately just ended up in vain. Where did it go, the riled up spirit of The Boys in bringing Homelander down? They have the weakest excuses to portray this change of heart. With M.M.'s plot, well, I guess, okay, as he has his own personal vendetta against Soldier Boy, it's still understandable. This is to put aside that they went with the "Soldier Boy kills my family" plot too easily (we didn't get to ever see what actually happened and it's brushed off as nothing more than "racism", which is quite disappointing since there were plenty of rooms for flashback this season).
But then there's Butcher. He ended up beating down Soldier Boy because Soldier Boy hit his kid? I mean, sure it's his kid, but where's the man-with-a-mission-to-kill-Homelander-no-matter-what-it-takes that we've seen for all these three seasons? If Butcher was a little smarter - and he actually is with his cunning tactics and all! - he could've stopped Soldier Boy for a while, let Homelander pats Ryan's back, then when Ryan is out of sight just finish off Homelander by then. Soldier Boy doesn't even seem to hold anything against Ryan (especially after he knows Ryan is Butcher's son). The whole charade about beating up Soldier Boy is a really weak plot point just to let Homelander alive to be the ultimate big bad in next seasons.
Still here? We'll get to Homelander but let's talk about Maeve briefly. What's her end goal? At first she seems to be an ally ready to take down Homelander, but when it comes to actually facing Homelander she can't see the forest for the trees. Rather than staying true to her goal to kill Homelander, she was just absorbed with herself, punching Homelander around only to get herself beaten. Sure, Maeve isn't the most tactical ones, but she's been supplying Butcher with everything so far.
Last, Homelander. As soon as the fight ends, my biggest question is: what would be Homelander's yet another reason to NOT kill Butcher, Hughie, and co? Our Boys have been picking a fight with him since Season 1. It's clear our protagonists are pests to him, but he keeps giving them leeway. At this point isn't it easier to just get rid of them all when Ryan's not looking to prevent our Boys messing up with him again? There's a fan speculation that predicted Homelander is going to be depowered, then he's going to live the whole Season 4 under Vought's protection while our Boys track down the biggest big bad: Compound V. I think I like that better since it's going to show how Homelander will struggle with his weakness and humanity. But I guess the showrunners wanted to keep on getting Homelander more unhinged and even more unhinged and violent, as shown when he lasered a guy in a parade. With this direction, I'm expecting the show to end in a high note with chaos everywhere like perhaps in the comics. I just hope they don't prolong this much further - maybe Season 5 at most.
Then there's some plot devices like Tempo V, powering the army with V, etc that are left unexplored, which feels a bit like nothing more than filler to get the plot moves forward. And the fact that they kind of go with cliffhanger in this finale reminds me of Season 1's rather weak, cliffhanger-ish finale as well (perhaps that's their pattern: the real season finale is in the even-numbered seasons).
That said, this episode is still quite entertaining as it kept me guessing where the plot would go. It's not as frantic and riled up as Herogasm (Eps 6) and the direction is not quite satisfying, but it's fine. The theme of this season is "family", they stay true to that up to the finale. Soldier Boy's dialogue with Homelander is good. Talk about how toxic upbringing would make you become toxic as well, while thinking you can do better than your parents.
I like that they are planning to use the political plot with Neuman in Season 4 (I thought it was going to be wasted after the nice development in Season 2) as The Boys' forte is taking a jab at politics and corporatism. I do hope we will see what Stan Edgar envisioned as Vought "getting out of the supe business in the next five years."
I also like what they did with Ryan, coming together with Homelander, and the way Homelander is normalizing Ryan to violence. This is the consequence of Butcher's acting asshole-ish to everyone and sure hope our Boys will see the consequences of his action, especially with the sweet reunion with everyone at the table in the end (feels like the calm before the storm).
All in all, not a bad finale, but a bit too disappointing in the way they resolve the plots that have been built up all this season.
Low budget who-dun-it claustrophobic-ish horror film interspersed with detective work. I personally think the film could work even better if they focused on emphasizing the claustrophobic feeling of being trapped in an elevator, but the film still works nonetheless. Performance is decent enough to fill the film with an air of mystery that the devil can be anyone in the room. The ending however is the weakest part of the film, as the climax is resolved too easily after all of the budding suspense has been built up.
The key takeaway of the film, to me, is its subtle offhand remark of American yuppie culture; the tasteful thickness of the way they jab (okay I'll stop) at how everyone is trying to be like everyone else - "trying to fit in," in Bateman's words - that everyone mistakes someone for another and someone like Patrick Bateman can get away with murder.
The whole film is about him needing to fit in but at the same time stand out.
The film toys with the idea of the murder scenes being an imagination that all happened in Bateman's head, but I say the line is only drawn when the things get more ridiculous. It's even earlier than the one they displayed in the third act - when the ATM shows the message to feed it a cat - but when Bateman started hanging out in Paul Allen's apartment. An investigation was going on: why would Bateman intentionally spread their fingerprints all around? Partly perhaps he did want to get caught - the desire to find out who he really is beneath the mundane sameness of corporate life - as the conversation with the lawyer suggested. Partly, however, is his active imagination playing bigger and bigger role as he descended into madness in this third act, as you can see that right after that scene we get the ATM scene and the car explosion scene where even Bateman himself couldn't believe it just happened.
The director did admit that the ending give viewers a wrong impression of what really happened in the course of the film - so I'm basing my comments on that. The surreal last act seems to be ambiguous, but when you consider the change of demeanor from the realtor in Paul Allen's apartment (and the all-white, recently painted rooms) and the lawyer Bateman talked to, that should be telling of the point of the third act. The eerie interaction, tense acting, and the music really made the last act as the best of the film.
Even when the film is intended as a commentary of 1980s hedonistic yuppie culture, I can still see it being relevant today. The consumerist, "getting into the fad" corporatist culture endures even into the culture of Silicon Valley workers. Patrick Bateman is a that obnoxious guy who really likes to hear himself talk - the kind of Twitter people and YouTube video essayists with celebrity syndrome - and the whole Pierce & Pierce young executives competing against each other to sound smart and look posh are just your typical tech workers taking a jab at politics. Their understanding of the events are just skin deep, but they want to look like the best among themselves. This is why the film is great even in 2022 and I think it will stay great at least in the next 10 years.
Others might say that this is not as intense as previous episode, which might be true in terms of action and moving the plot forward. But I find this episode is still intense in a different way: more emotional investment.
"Family" and its unfortunately related cousin "abuse" seem to be the the theme that knits together different story arcs of the episode: the obvious Butcher flashback, Kimiko and Frenchie, MM with his family, Soldier Boy, and Homelander.
The episode kind of speeds up the pace in showing Soldier Boy's villainy through a recreation/imagination of Black Noir's flashback; although I'm not too comfortable that they present Noir's flashback at face value (instead of being an unreliable narrator), I think it still kinda works.
It is shown that Soldier Boy is an abusive, selfish bully with anger issues you would typically see among band leads or celebrity groups. While some have defended Soldier Boy's action by comparing him to Homelander ("at least Soldier Boy is not psychotic, emotionally unstable narcissist! He is a normal person not grown in lab!"), I think they missed the point of the show: the biggest issue here is exactly what would happen if people with power (influence) have additional power (literal superpower) while being protected by multi-billion dollar company. They possess all the impunity to wreak havoc. Like MM said, "no one should have the right to wield such power."
This theme of abuse is explicated with Butcher's flashback. No one is inherently "good" or "evil" - you are shaped by your upbringing. As the scenes between his memories, his reflection, and his projection in current time are cut seamlessly back and forth, Butcher slowly realizes that he mirrors the man he hated the most. Yet he fully accepts his succumbing to that darkness while bringing Hughie with him through his personal vendetta against the supes - not caring about the risk towards others who he claimed he loved. Even with parents, one may grow to be a contemptuous person if they live in an abusive family, and it's a cycle that is very difficult to break. Butcher's flashback is certainly the spotlight of the episode for me.
Even with Kimiko's story in the background (her saying that V only explicates what kind of person you are), considering that we've been shown how the character's social lives shaped them into what they are now - Kimiko with her abducted kid background, Hughie's insecurity with his zero to hero job, etc - the message stays strong, countering the superhero cliche of inherently morally good and evil person.
I'm hoping this dynamic could be further explored in the next episode (or season) with the Soldier Boy and Homelander encounter when it's revealed that Soldier Boy is Homelander's father, at least he feels so. An abusive father meets a narcissist kid-who'd-wanna-be-a-father. The ending of this episode becomes revealing when tied up to the earlier convesation between Homelander and Maeve: with Homelander echoing Soldier Boy's words that he "used to dream of having kids" with Maeve, it becomes apparent in this episode that the relationship between Homelander and Maeve (and Soldier Boy and Crimson Countess) it is not something exactly out of pure love.
"Having kids" is not a romantic statement: it's a purely masculine, self-centered ego of having someone of your blood - of your similarity - that you can be proud of. Who the partner is doesn't matter; they are only means to that end. And in that Soldier Boy shares something in common with Homelander as shown through his delight of accepting Homelander readily as his son, albeit lab-grown. He only wants to see a better version of him.
Last but not least, I love the jab at corporate this episode still throws. Ashley spinning breaking news about Starlight in a similar way Disney would spin stories about their abuse and mismanagement; and that A-Train being zombified, again, with the heart of Blue Hawk embedded in his body, serving only as Vought's puppet. I'm not sure if that's the most satisfying end to A-Train's arc, but seeing his disappointed, grim look, his lack of agency, I guess the character suffers a lot. I just hope this will be the last of his arc and the show doesn't squeeze him further.
That said, with the reveal at the ending, I am not sure I am 100% satisfied as I was expecting Soldier Boy bringing down Homelander, or rendering him powerless by the end of the season. Looks like Homelander will continue to be the main villain. I just hope they don't prolong the "mentally unstable" trope too much and find ways to keep the show interesting. Looking forward to the finale.
Most solid episode of the season so far. Nothing extraordinarily amazing, but it's just The Boys at its best like in the first half of Season 1.
What I like the most is that everything that happens leading to the climax in the Herogasm is just frantic, chaotic, a lot of stuff happening at once, unplanned, unpredictable, and consequently, tragic. Just a lot of things coming out together at the same time, including the tying up of loose ends of plot points (e.g. with A-Train's demise and his conflict with Hughie).
The episode keeps the comedy and jab at corporate speak intact, but does not overdo it so we get straight to the crux of the matter. From Homelander, Starlight, Kimiko/Frenchie, Hughie, A-Train, even Ashley - the plot revolving around those characters are about what makes them really them. They all have struggled with the question whether power (be it through V or executive position) made them into a terrible person they do not like, but it is all actually on them. Power only explicate their attitude. Like Butcher in the previous episode said, "With great power comes the absolute certainty, that you will turn into a right cunt."
It was interesting to see how each characters react: Hughie portrayed as an insecure man, A-Train tasting his own bitter medicine, Starlight getting tired of the play-pretend and politicking she has played all over the years, and of course, Homelander being Homelander. I find it especially best with Hughie and A-Train. Hughie, when in S1 he acted as our moral compass, here we see him as someone fragile, a man unable to keep up with the pace of the world he's living in and feeling defeated by his girlfriend for not being a breadwinner. A-Train, a great end to his arc, as he realizes that he has caused so many harms to others due to his toxicity, he realizes that he can only bring a little bit of justice for his own brother. He can't run away from his past like Frenchie said, I think it's very poetic.
Also it's refreshing to get a brief character development with Soldier Boy. Hoping that there is more to this character in the next seasons to come.
Last but not least, the fight with Homelander was intense. The unexpected Butcher x Hughie x Soldier Boy tag-team is great, especially with the confused, defeated look Homelander gave to them. I'm expecting this will drive Homelander even uncontrollable, especially now with his inner monologue and everyone either against him (Starlight, Maeve, if she is still there) or leaving him (Noir and possibly A-Train). The show seems to be planting the seed of conflict between our Boys in the future to come. Hopefully this will pay off.
They've been drawing parallels between Payback and Seven every now and then, but this episode shows the clearest. The sad thing is, if Soldier Boy is Payback's Homelander, and the team both hated their lead and tried to redeem themselves like Maeve do. then what a writing to show that Butcher is not a main character you should sympathize with. He is pragmatic, calculative, cold-blooded murderer sacrificing the redeemed Crimson Countess and Gunpowder who never liked Soldier Boy.
I find it interesting that there are parallels with Season 1 here. Butcher is back to his cold-blooded self and the compromise they're making with Soldier Boy reminds me a bit of similar ones they made with Starlight when they first discovered her. However Hughie, besides his power, seem to have not progressed much as a character, as he resorted to his confused, worst decision maker habit like we've seen in Season 1.
Other than that, the episode feels a bit lighter compared to the first three, not as packed but still better paced than the previous episode. Only 3 episodes left. Curious where they will take us. Hope this pays off.
Up until this episode The Boys Season 3 has been solid with only a few dents, but this episode the dents are getting bigger and they're kinda showing.
First of all, everything doesn't seem to be too well-paced here.
Butcher and Hughie just had a convo in previous episode about not showing him taking Tempo V, but then in the lab he just outright stormed the bullets and showing off to the others about his newfound power. And same with Hughie, who somehow got a dose too. Worse thing the lab situation doesn't seem to be even that bad. They don't seem to be outnumbered nor outgunned, and they've seen worse before. Facing Gunpowder, it's understandable why they'd need a V; but this? Seems kinda forced to me as if the writers need to just waste those Vs already.
Still on the lab: The Soldier Boy reveal seems to be a bit hurried. Butcher suddenly randomly opening up stuff while in fact they realize they're onto something dangerous which may or may not have Soldier Boy in the lab is not just reckless (we know Butcher is) but dumb. Aren't they there to find a superweapon? When Soldier Boy escaped, they just ended up stopping the search and went back home. Granted there's the situation with the team, but the whole thing about this supposedly mysterious Soldier Boy and the search for superweapon just feels really anticlimactic.
Then, the thing with Vicky and Stan Edgar. The way she outted Edgar is a surprising twist, and I kinda like that Homelander Magneto-esque speech about choosing their own kind. But it seemed to be paced oddly interspersed between fillers and actions going on with The Boys.
There are a few death flags as well (though hopefully it's just false ones): either KImiko or Frenchie or both with their "one last run" convo; MM with the "you're natural-born leader" convo; and of course Alex/Supersonic with the "I'm gonna help you cause it's the right thing to do." That's just a straight death flag and it's proven true by the end of the episode - which again, is kinda odd paced, seemingly coming out of nowhere.
To note that this isn't a bad episode at all, but it feels like things are kinda jumbled here and there, making watching especially the second half a bit tedious. Not to mention that the first half isn't as packed and well-structured as prev episodes (it's the moment they started playing the "3 seconds still shot" too much that I felt that it's a bit too filler-y). The A-Train Pepsi parody is well done though - The Boys is always the best at parody but I hope they can do more than that.
Hopefully it will get better.
Solid episode all around. The Boys staying true to its criticism on woke capitalism (carnivals overselling LGBT empowerment) while portraying how the supes despite being antagonists are still human. Loved that scene with Kimiko and Crimson Countess: showing Kimiko's childhood innocence and Crimson Countess' human side. And this episode returns to remind us that Butcher is not a hero, but a cruel, supe-hating murderer.
This first episode does take its time to show the transition from the one-year-off screen-peacetime to the action again. So it is no wonder they spent the first half of the episode rather slowly, showing the peaceful lives of the cast. They don't shake off the uncomfortable feeling of Homelander's unpredictability though; every time he's on screen I'm never so sure what would happen next. Not to mention that there's also Neuman, every time she's on screen I can't get rid of the feeling that anything something explode at anytime.
I like that they still play the vulgar sex, gross violence, and not-so-subtle allegories (Homelander being jerked off) like in previous seasons. But like the other reviewer said, I hope they don't rely too much only on those tropes and offer something new to the table.
Good episode. Kickstarted the season and made me curious of what's coming. Fares much better than the Brotherhood version here. The episode shows the consequence of Ed and Al's action to the city rather than just showing them wreaking havoc. It also shows Al as a more empathetic side compared to Ed.
This is a good episode for two reasons:
As a pilot, this sets the tone directly. Not overdone humor, enough action, and enough world-building. The mechanics is there, brief background of our protagonists are there, and the conflict is there. Ed came off as a reasonable but still haughty/bratty state alchemist. Compare this to the pilot in FMA: Brotherhood which introduced too many characters, etc, which gets confusing.
Compared to the same episode in FMA: Brotherhood, this one explains much better why the priest was beloved by his people. The people are not just blind fanatics mesmerized by miracle, but benefit materially from him. There is also enough character development between Ed & Al with the others so they don't come off as haughty edgy atheists barging to people's door. More time to set the tone and silently establishes the bigger antagonists as well.
The only thing jarring here is the people just have to be brown just because they live in desert lol. Stereotype of very 2000-ish anime.
Not sure what was wrong with the episode, but the science vs religion contrast feels a bit tacked on, and the conflict as well as the resolution feels really hurried. The citizen seems to be too foolishly gullible to believe the antagonist with no strong reason except 'muh miracles'. The antagonist seems pretty dumb to reveal his grand plan just like that for the plot to keep on going. And, the worst is, Ed sounds like an edgy Reddit atheist with his haughty "god doesn't exist" speech.
Weak pilot. Too many characters introduced, mixed with some out of place humor. Worst is that this episode shows both the state alchemists as unorganized, reckless institution (no plan at all to anticipate attack on central) and the Ice Alchemist as incompetent offender (with all that spectacle he really doesn't seem to plan anything in advance, as he gets beaten by Elric bros).
The film is a about young professor who claims that he's a 14,000 year old caveman and tells his life history during his farewell party to a group of academic friends/colleagues. The film is confined almost exclusively in a room with people bantering and questioning the protagonists' claim.
I find the history which the film stands upon is a bit shaky, especially in the prehistory part ('transition' from hunter-gathering to agrarian), as it feels like tacking on a pop history evolutionist bent. The focus on grand, familiar historical figures of the west (Buddha, Jesus, Napoleon, etc) also makes the story less convincing as it might seem a bit too Western pop history (e.g., no Southeast Asian, Mediterranean, or Eurasian history at all despite David Lee Smith having the looks of it).
However it's understandable due to scholarship in 2007. Would be a good conversation starter, still. Would make a good talk with family/friends/partner if you have interest in the longue-duree kind of thing. I'd love to see similar story built upon Graeber's The Dawn of Everything. :)
This film reminds me not to listen to some arthouse film critics on the news and especially not those smartass internet film "connoisuier" who abuse the phrase "human condition".
High Life is a slow-burn, and there's nothing wrong with slow burn. I enjoyed Blade Runner and The Irishman. It's just there's nothing really scifi here except the setting and the mechanically accurate black hole. The characters are not likeable, not even remotely relatable to the audience. No depths. Barring Pattinson's and Andre's characters, the film doesn't give the chance to portray them as human beings - only degenerate despicables.
Most of the screen time can be completely cut to 50% and you still barely got what the plot is about. I mean the color and cinematography looks good, in a way that sets the bleak tone of the film. But it's not supported by other elements such as music or sound design.
The more interesting part of the film is the relationship between Pattinson's character and the baby, but like most French auteur the film decides to spend most of its time to sex scenes.
Last two episodes have been good, kinda shows the dynamics between characters (Clay being so petty with the new guy and Gemma keep trying to maintain her matriarch role). The only downside here is the a bit poorly executed gunfight.
A potentially great film being held hostage by its PG-13 rating and its messy, all over the places screenwriting.
By PG-13 I don't simply mean its visuals/goriness, but most importantly its dialogues, themes, and storytelling it tries to raise. Let me explain.
First, the dialogues.
The film opens with murder and Batman narrating the city's anxious mood. We get a glimpse of noir in this scene, but it soon falls flat due to a very uninteresting, plain, forgettable choice of words Batman used in his narration. Mind you, this is not a jab at Pattinson - Pattinson delivered it nicely. But there is no emotion in his line of words - there is no adjectives, there is no strong feelings about how he regards the city full of its criminals.
Here's a line from the opening scene. "Two years of night has turned me to a nocturnal animal. I must choose my targets carefully. It's a big city. I can't be everywhere. But they don't know where I am. When that light hits the sky, it's not just a call. It's a warning to them. Fear... is a tool. They think I am hiding in the shadows. Watching. Waiting to strike. I am the shadows." Okay? Cool. But sounds like something from a cartoon. What does that tell us about you, Batman?
Compare this to a similar scene uttered by Rorschach in Watchmen. "The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood. And when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. All those liberals and intellectuals, smooth talkers... Beneath me, this awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children, and the night reeks of fornication and bad consciences." You can say that Rorschach is extremely edgy (he is), but from that line alone we can tell his hatred towards the city, and even more so: his perspective, his philosophy that guides him to conduct his life and do what he does.
Rorschach's choice of words is sometimes verbose, but he is always expletive and at times graphic, making it clear to the audience what kind of person he is. Batman in this film does not. His words are always very safe, very carefully chosen, which strikes as an odd contrast to Pattinson's tortured portrayal of Batman as someone with a seemingly pent up anger. His choice of words is very PG-13 so that the kids can understand what Batman is trying to convey.
And this is not only in the opening scene. Throughout the film, the dialogues are written very plainly forgettable. It almost feels like the characters are having those conversations just to move the plot forward. Like that one encounter between Batman and Catwoman/Selina when she broke into the house to steal the passport or when Selina asked to finish off the "rat". They flow very oddly unnatural, as if those conversations are written to make them "trailer-able" (and the scenes indeed do appear on the trailer).
Almost in all crucial plot points the writers feel the need to have the characters to describe what has happened, or to explictly say what they are feeling - like almost every Gordon's scene in crime scene, or Selina's scene when she's speaking to Batman. It feels like the writers feel that the actors' expression just can't cut it and the audience has to be spoonfed with dialogues; almost like they're writing for kids.
Second, the storytelling.
Despite being a film about vengeance-fueled Batman (I actually like that cool "I'm vengeance" line) we don't get to see him actually being in full "vengeance" mode. Still in the opening we see Batman punching some thugs around. That looks a little bit painful but then the thugs seem to be fit enough to run away and Batman let them be. Then in the middle of the film we see Batman does something similar to mafias. Same, he just knocked them down but there's nothing really overboard with that. Then eventually in the car chase scene with the Penguin, Batman seem to be on "full rage mode", but over... what? He was just talking to Penguin a moment ago. The car chase scene itself is a bit pointless if not only to show off the Batmobile. And Batman did nothing to the Penguin after, just a normal questioning, not even harsher than Bale's Batman did to Heath's Joker in The Dark Knight - not in "'batshit insane' cop" mode as Penguin put it.
Batman's actions look very much apprehensive and controlled. Nothing too outrageous. Again, at odds with Pattinson's portrayal that seem to be full of anger; he's supposed to be really angry but somehow he still does not let his anger take the best of him. The only one time he went a bit overboard that shocked other characters is when he kept punching a villain near the end of the film. But even then it's not because his anger; it's because he injected some kind of drug (I guess some adrenaline shot). A very safe way to drop a parent-friendly message that "drug is bad, it can change you" in a PG-13 film.
And all that supposed anger... we don't get to see why he is angry and where his anger is directed at. Compare this to Arthur Fleck in Joker where it is clear as sky why Arthur would behave the way the does in the film. I mean we know his parents' death troubled him, but it's barely even discussed, not even in brief moments with Alfred (except in one that supposedly "shocking" moment). So... where's your vengeance, Mr. Vengeance? And what the hell are you vengeancing on?
Speaking of "shocking" moment... this is about the supposed Wayne family's involvement in the city's criminal affairs that has been teased early in the film. Its revelation was very anticlimactic: the supposed motive and the way it ended up the way it is, all very childish. If the film wanted the Wayne to be a "bad person", there's a lot of bads that a billionaire can do: tax evasion, blood diamond, funding illegal arms trade, fending off unions, hell, they can even do it the way the Waynes in Joker did it: hints of sexual abuses. But no, it has to be some bloody murder again, and all for a very trivial reason of "publicity". As if the film has to make it clear to the kids: "hey this guy's bad because he killed someone!" Which COULD work if the film puts makes taking someone's life has a very serious consequence. But it just pales to the serial killing The Riddler has done.
Even more anticlimactic considering how Bruce Wayne attempted to find a resolve in this matter only takes less than a 5 minute scene! It all involves only a bit of dialogues which boils down to how Thomas Wayne has a good reason to do so. Bruce somehow is convinced with that and has a change of heart instantly, making him looks very gullible.
And of course the ending is very weak and disappointing. First, Riddler's final show directly contradicts his initial goal to expose and destroy the corrupt elites. What he did instead is making the lives of the poor more difficult, very oxymoron for someone supposed to be as smart as him.
Second, the way Batman just ended up being "vengeance brings nothing and I should save people more than hurting people" does not get enough development to have him to say that in the end. Again - where's your vengeance? And how did you come to such character development if nothing is being developed on? And let's not get to how it's a very safe take against crime and corruption that closely resembles Disney's moralistic pandering in Marvel Cinematic Universe film.
Last, the visuals.
I'm not strictly speaking about gore, though that also factors in the discussion. The film sets this up as a film about hunting down a serial killer. But the film barely shows how cruel The Riddler can be to his victims. Again, back to the opening scene: we get it, Riddler killed the guy, but it does not look painful at all as it looks Riddler just knocked him twice. The sound design is very lacking that it does not seem what The Riddler done was conducted very painfully. Riddler then threw away his murder weapon, but we barely see blood. Yet when Gordon arrived to the crime scene, he described the victim as being struck multiple times with blood all over. What?
Similarly, when Riddler forced another victim to wear a bomb in his neck. The situation got pretty tense, but when the bomb eventually blow off, we just got some very small explosion like a small barrel just exploded, not a human being! I mean I'm not saying we need a gory explosion with head chopped off like in The Boys, but it does not look like what would happen if someone's head got blown off. Similarly when another character got almost blown off by a bomb - there's no burnt scar at all.
Why the hell are they setting up those possibly gory deaths and scars if they're not going to show how severe and painful these are? At least not the result - we don't need to see blood splattered everywhere - just how painful the process is. Sound design and acting of the actors (incl. twitching, for example) would've helped a lot even we don't see the gore, like what James Franco did in The 127 Hours or Hugh Jackman in Logan. In this film there's almost no tense at all resulting from those.
I'm not saying this film is terrible.
The acting, given the limited script they had, is excellent. Pattinson did his best, so did Paul Dano (always likes him as a villain), Zoe Kravitz, and the rest. Cinematography is fantastic; the lighting, angle, everything here is very great that makes a couple of very good trailers - perhaps one could even say that the whole film trades off coherency for making the scenes "trailer-able". The music is iconic, although with an almost decent music directing. And I guess this detective Batman is a fresh breath of air.
But all that does not make the movie good as in the end it's still all over the places and very PG-13.
Especially not with the 3 hours runtime where many scenes feel like a The Walking Dead filler episode.
If you're expecting a Batman film with similar gritty, tone to The Dark Knight trilogy or Joker, this film is not for you. But if you only want a live-action cartoon like pre-Nolan Batmans or The Long Halloween detective-style film, well, I guess you can be satisfied with this one.
I guess this episode has little bit of everything. There is a bit of suspense of the barn invasion. There is a bit of action in the final showdown, of course. There is a bit of Justice League cameo. There is a bit of character development during the mission preparation. There is a bit of wrapping up the story (each characters' fate, tying up loose ends, and Peacemaker making peace with himself). And there is also some stereotypical eco-message slipped in (I guess since this is the anthropocene and Thanos' ecofascism seems to be popular...).
It's not a gripping finale, but it does what it does well for an action comedy that doesn't take itself too seriously.
Highlight would be: I like that they keep Goff alive because Peacemaker's personal connection and Judomaster also alive with his chips-eating habit. I also liked that they're setting this up for future DCEU but not too blatantly obvious that they had to throw away the standalone-ness of the show like MCU/Marvel Studios usually do.
It ties all loose ends and give some resolution to Peacemaker as a character. Despite not having much progression in the plot, I don't think it's a bad episode. It develops Peacemaker, Adebayo, and Harcourt more, even though I hoped we could've seen more from how Peacemaker and Harcourt handled what happened in the episode. Characters in the show, though, do feel expendable, and I kept wondering if they'd kill Eagly. Thankfully they didn't.
James Gunn really liked the idea of shoving stuff into people's mouth huh. He did it in The Suicide Squad, he did it again here.
