Perhaps because this movie tries hard to mirror Lord of the Rings - to be an "LoTR prequel" - it does not succeed too much in being a good movie.
First we get the continuation of Smaug's terror on the Laketown. This whole event that eventually leads to Smaug's demise feels so much hurried. We see Smaug ravaging the town, we see people fleeing in fear, but we don't see any actual horror preyed upon the people of Laketown. It feels like "just another dragon's burning routine on another town nearby". And the hero who is destined by blood to beat down dragon seems to have lost his mind when jumping straight into the tower without preparation. He even forgot to carry the legendary arrow!
Perhaps because the action, the tense, has been drown so much. When the great dragon is finally taken down, there is no sense of accomplishment at all. This Smaug scene should have been included in the previous movie. The film opens with a rather unsatisfying pace, a rather tedious 30 minutes, before diving into the main event which is the subtitle of this movie: "The Battle of the Five Armies".
This, as the subtitle indicates, should have been a grand event as much as the LoTR's Battle of the Black Gate or Battle of Pelennor fields. Especially since the movie tries so hard to be a LoTR's prequel: epic story of war and a rising darkness.
But nope. The battle itself is not as grandeur as LoTR. The occasional comic relief (like we usually see between Gimli and Legolas) does not work here either.
First, there is almost no buildup for the war. None. We suddenly get an elf army, Thorin's hard-headedness, his distant kin, all out of nowhere. We are presented with bunch of gold-hungry people ready for war without a strong reason to go for war. We see no explanation for Thranduil's hunger for their crown jewel (except for "it's our people's jewel") and so is for Thorin's sudden craziness for gold.
Thorin's greed is supposed to be the main theme of The Hobbit, but we only a slight clue leading to his greedy craziness. It was foreshadowed in the second movie and I was expecting it to be more laid out in this third movie.
Second, the war itself is rather... how to say it, just a clash of weapons. The pacing is very terrible. Especially when the orc armies finally came. The tense between the dwarves and elves were building prior to the orc's arrival, but it gets broken fast (the dwarves just go after the orcs very soon as if they're really that blood-thirsty). Also the title is "Battle of the Five Armies" but the ones who get into action are only dwarves, the elves, and the orcs. The human is just there struggling to survive and the eagles, the fifth army, came very late and were only shown in a flash. We don't even get a view how the war is resolved except for a distant view - a glimpse - that the orc's army is waning. We don't even told how is the Arkenstone - the supposed cause of the conflict - is doing after the war broke!
All this are accompanied with a too-often comic relief brought to you by Alfrid, the former Laketown mayor's second-in-command. Seriously he is really distracting. He bears no relevance to the story at all but the writer keeps bringing him up again and again.
Third, the ultimate showdown between Thorin and Azog is really disappointing. Thorin, who bears so much grudge with the orc who killed his grandfather, fights with no passion at all. The hot-blooded guy who we usually see being rash to many people, do not seem to show his contempt to the very person who brought death to his own family! As a king with remarkable combat prowess, Thorin also looks really clumsy fighting Azog, like his previous combat experience has just gone suddenly.
I just can't understand how easy he thought Azog was dead. I mean it's Azog; it's the guy who he knows himself (indicated in the previous two movies) is very hard to kill. He doesn't even bother to deal a finishing blow and hopes freeze will caught Azog dead! It's like the burning passion in his eyes, when he met Azog face-to-face in the forest (in the previous movie), it's like... it's like that passion has just gone. Gone with the wind.
Last, the epilogue. The dialogue between Tauriel and Thranduil when she is mourning is REALLY REALLY cheesy ("because it was real," really?). Thranduil also sounds so confusingly random when Legolas decides to go ("your mother loves you"... so? Wasn't it Tauriel who brought up the whole "love" stuff?).
It's such a shame because the first and second movie are at least decent.
loading replies
That's exactly how I feel.
Review by Jordy
VIP8Barbenheimer: 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
loading replies
@jordyep I agree with you with almost everything. I totally disagree about the sound mix. I loved the sound design and it was not a problem at my movie theater. I do think Tenet is a really good movie, better than Oppenheimer.
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
loading replies
@jordyep Just watched the movie, and literally the plot & it's placing is the best I have seen so far in any comic book film.
I liked it. But, maybe it would have been better suited as a series. The universe seems to have a lot of unused potential.
loading replies
@harboejacob The story has more to tell with the same characters maybe for a Part 2. The movie isn't bad like the critics said, it's only the David Ayer style that makes the film not so enjoyable for all the audiences.
Crap ending don’t waste your time. Just a rehashing of other movies you’ve already seen.
loading replies
@rickay From a user on IMDB who explains the ending for everyone who didn't get this movie :-) My opinion, Great movie 8/10.
I Am Mother (2019)
10/10
No one noticed?! The women from outside is actually...
8 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The biggest plot twist which would explain the entire movie is given out right in the beginning and verified multiple times throughout, then again at the ending.
The '13867 days since extinction event' in the opening sequence indicates 38 years have past. Yet the daughter shown was only a teenager. That's because the women from outside was the 1st daughter ever... let me exlpain:
During the middle of the film when the current daughter takes the exam + discovers that the robot mother had lied and killed 'failed' children before, it shows that her label is APX03, and APX02 have failed (incinerated), but 3 embryos were used from the lab... get it?
The women from outside was APX01, the first "daughter", she matches the 38 years old timeline. Remember the robot said to her in the end "wonder why you survived this long out here as if someone had a purpose for you? Until now" Because she is the ultimate test to see if APX03 is truly ready to take on the role as mother for a new generation of humans (she returned hence passed the test so the robot left her alone). The women's memory was clearly altered/erased, that's why she totally couldn't respond when the robot said "Tell me... Do you remember your mother?"
Some more details... 1. The women sunk into a state of confusion when she saw the tonight show playing, and said she used to watch it a long time ago - her vague memories from living in the facility. She would never have seen it if she was out there for the whole 38 years. (Due to the end of civilization) 2. The women was meant to find the facility at that moment, everything was planned, including the bio suit, which obviously didn't need to exist otherwise. 3. This is speculation, but the women's artistic abilities might've been her training as a child. Remember the current daughter started prcating dancing since a young age? The robot recognized the importance of art and tries to incorporate that into each daughter's education.
I created this account cuz I couldn't stand how many morons are saying negative things about the movie... including critics, sadly.
I can appreciate it's not like every other spin off, focused on creatures and side missions but I still don't know what the hell is this show even about. Just a man on the run?
loading replies
@the_argentinian The start of the real rebellion, basically. At this point people are fighting the Empire, but very sporadically and unorganized. The rebellion that Ben and Luke joins doesn't exist right now. Andor, and the animated SW Rebels, are about how it starts.
Calling it now: bet it's cannibalism
loading replies
@tomekad It's a good movie. You should take a sec and watch it instead of your L comment.
Shout by Jordy
VIP8Are you feeling nostalgic for movies like Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Elektra, Ghost Rider and The Punisher?
Well, you’re in luck.Easily the worst comicbook film since Hellboy (2019), but I doubt that’s to many people’s surprise.
It’s produced by Avi Arad and written by the guys who did Power Rangers, Gods of Egypt and The Last Witch Hunter.
Its director has never made anything noteworthy, and the lead is an overrated, pretentious hack whose performances have derailed many films over the past ten years.
It’s exactly what you think it’s going to be: dated, nonsensical, overblown and completely soulless.
It’s got crappy acting, predictable story devices, weak dialogue, weird editing choices, everything looks cheap and blue; you probably get the gist of it by now, especially if you’ve seen those movies I mentioned earlier.
This is nothing more than a quick cash in by a studio who thinks they can sell anything for as long as you slap Marvel’s name in front of it.
And they’re probably right, so who can blame them for making it?2/10
loading replies
@jim222001 I think he’s trolling. And disliking The Batman doesn’t automatically make you a Snyderhead.
The show had its up and downs.
But honestly I found the last season a high tick up in quality over the last few & it felt like a return to form, so I'm glad it ended in a bang (pun intended).One thing that did prevail thru the up's and down was the cast. They were the heart of the show and put their all into every episode. Many giving performances that are wave above & beyond cable TV. The show gets a ton of hate, but overall I'd say it was a fun journey & I'll definitely miss it.
Thanks for the wild ride & I'm excited to see what they do with TWDU.
P.S - Haters who comment on LITERALLY every episode, can ya'll please just NOT watch any of the other shows & b*tch non-stop no matter how good it is? It will make all of our lives a lot easier :)
loading replies
@mattdeezly1996 I told you why I keep watching and keep complaining. Work on your reading comprehension skills.
The show had its up and downs.
But honestly I found the last season a high tick up in quality over the last few & it felt like a return to form, so I'm glad it ended in a bang (pun intended).One thing that did prevail thru the up's and down was the cast. They were the heart of the show and put their all into every episode. Many giving performances that are wave above & beyond cable TV. The show gets a ton of hate, but overall I'd say it was a fun journey & I'll definitely miss it.
Thanks for the wild ride & I'm excited to see what they do with TWDU.
P.S - Haters who comment on LITERALLY every episode, can ya'll please just NOT watch any of the other shows & b*tch non-stop no matter how good it is? It will make all of our lives a lot easier :)
loading replies
@jonas1981 Yeah, because only people who love it are allowed to have an opinion.
I have watched the entire show more than 5 times (except for the last 4 seasons) and it was my favorite show of all time until they ruined it. I had to finish it no matter how much I hated it because I have invested so much of my life watching.
This crap about not being allowed to criticize or do anything but rate a show that didn't even end a 10 is just plain crap. I hope they sell it to Disney so they can Star Wars it, even though that's what they're doing anyway.
Enjoy your 5 million spinoffs.
The cynical side of me wants to call this Everything, everywhere all at once for consoomers.
The optimistic side of me sees Kevin Feige finally pushing the boundaries of his own franchise.
I guess it’s a little bit of both in the end.Undoubtedly, the best thing the movie has going for it is the Sam Raiminess of it all. His fingerprints are all over it; you’re getting the weird camera angles, camp, his sense of horror, etc. It definitely has more style than some other Marvel movies, though there's also still some of the usual blandness. I'll give it to Marvel for putting in a scene where a talking corpse gives a heartfelt, sentimental speech. There's more of a psychedelic feel to it than the first film, but every time it tends to get really interesting it feels like Raimi's being reigned it to adhere to Marvel's demands. Elizabeth Olsen and Benedict Cumberbatch are giving some of their best performances as these characters to date, and the music’s really well done. But ultimately the film’s Achilles heel is its own script, which is complete junk. The story is thin, messy, nonsensical, and at times flat out embarrassing. The set-up in the first act is very rushed, while the second and third act feel like they’re written by a Reddit fanpage (you just know for a fact that Marvel only went in this direction because of the 2 Batmen that have been announced for The Flash). It’s Marvel at its most ‘producty’, and it’s going to trick a lot of people into thinking the film is better than it is. Regardless, I hope Patrick Stewart got a big paycheck for ruining his own perfect send-off in Logan at the very least. A lot of the story beats don’t make sense either, with most of the characters arcs feeling rushed and nonsensical, even despite the copious amounts of exposition that are desperately trying to tie everything together. The choices made with Wanda in the third act are baffling, and I still don’t know what the takeaway is supposed to be by the end of the film. Her motivation is problematic in general, and I don’t like the use of the [insert plot device] corrupts the mind of the villain trope, which is becoming very overused in the MCU (Ant-Man, Winter Soldier) and just a lazy way of forcing a conflict where the villain stays redeemable. The new character (America Chavez) is a boring, underdeveloped plot device, while Strange himself doesn't even have a real arc. It's the kind of film where a lot happens, but very little leaves an actual impression. I’m not sure what happened, but I get the impression that a significant portion of this film was reworked and rewritten during post production. The action didn’t impress me whatsoever, but that’s been a case with these films for a while now (some of the stuff in Shang-Chi excluded). Some of the visuals look tacky and unfinished, the action’s a bunch of people shooting flashing lights at each other, shots don’t linger enough, people move like animated characters, it’s all the usual bs (and this is coming from someone who thinks the action and effects in the first one are still underappreciated to this day). Inbetween the first film and the sequel, Marvel has become a machine that’s now collapsing under its own pressure. If Disney would allow it, they really should go back to making 2-3 properties a year. The consistent mediocrity of their current output is killing their own longevity.
4/10
Oh, and your kids will be fine watching this. I’ve seen some uproar about the ‘horror’ and violence of the film, and it’s honestly not that shocking. There’s way more creepy stuff in some of the Harry Potter and Indiana Jones films (or just your average 80’s kids film in general).
loading replies
@medous Look, they’re banking on you as a viewer recognizing that character from the X-Men series, regardless of whether he’s technically a variant. Even though Marvel’s probably going with your route in order to not contradict the X-Men continuity, it’s pretty clear what their intentions are. You’re meant to think of him as that character, even though they can’t say that because it wouldn’t make sense. Hence, I found the way that it was handled extremely cheap.
The cynical side of me wants to call this Everything, everywhere all at once for consoomers.
The optimistic side of me sees Kevin Feige finally pushing the boundaries of his own franchise.
I guess it’s a little bit of both in the end.Undoubtedly, the best thing the movie has going for it is the Sam Raiminess of it all. His fingerprints are all over it; you’re getting the weird camera angles, camp, his sense of horror, etc. It definitely has more style than some other Marvel movies, though there's also still some of the usual blandness. I'll give it to Marvel for putting in a scene where a talking corpse gives a heartfelt, sentimental speech. There's more of a psychedelic feel to it than the first film, but every time it tends to get really interesting it feels like Raimi's being reigned it to adhere to Marvel's demands. Elizabeth Olsen and Benedict Cumberbatch are giving some of their best performances as these characters to date, and the music’s really well done. But ultimately the film’s Achilles heel is its own script, which is complete junk. The story is thin, messy, nonsensical, and at times flat out embarrassing. The set-up in the first act is very rushed, while the second and third act feel like they’re written by a Reddit fanpage (you just know for a fact that Marvel only went in this direction because of the 2 Batmen that have been announced for The Flash). It’s Marvel at its most ‘producty’, and it’s going to trick a lot of people into thinking the film is better than it is. Regardless, I hope Patrick Stewart got a big paycheck for ruining his own perfect send-off in Logan at the very least. A lot of the story beats don’t make sense either, with most of the characters arcs feeling rushed and nonsensical, even despite the copious amounts of exposition that are desperately trying to tie everything together. The choices made with Wanda in the third act are baffling, and I still don’t know what the takeaway is supposed to be by the end of the film. Her motivation is problematic in general, and I don’t like the use of the [insert plot device] corrupts the mind of the villain trope, which is becoming very overused in the MCU (Ant-Man, Winter Soldier) and just a lazy way of forcing a conflict where the villain stays redeemable. The new character (America Chavez) is a boring, underdeveloped plot device, while Strange himself doesn't even have a real arc. It's the kind of film where a lot happens, but very little leaves an actual impression. I’m not sure what happened, but I get the impression that a significant portion of this film was reworked and rewritten during post production. The action didn’t impress me whatsoever, but that’s been a case with these films for a while now (some of the stuff in Shang-Chi excluded). Some of the visuals look tacky and unfinished, the action’s a bunch of people shooting flashing lights at each other, shots don’t linger enough, people move like animated characters, it’s all the usual bs (and this is coming from someone who thinks the action and effects in the first one are still underappreciated to this day). Inbetween the first film and the sequel, Marvel has become a machine that’s now collapsing under its own pressure. If Disney would allow it, they really should go back to making 2-3 properties a year. The consistent mediocrity of their current output is killing their own longevity.
4/10
Oh, and your kids will be fine watching this. I’ve seen some uproar about the ‘horror’ and violence of the film, and it’s honestly not that shocking. There’s way more creepy stuff in some of the Harry Potter and Indiana Jones films (or just your average 80’s kids film in general).
loading replies
@onivlis I don’t think that’s worse than the infamous face melting scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark
About 15 minutes was OK, the rest was like watching paint dry.
loading replies
@bcstorey nah you just have below than average standard. Playing with squeaky toys must amuse you.
Review by Pradipa PR
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:
- Kind-hearted protagonist with hidden powers
- A reluctant badass jerk secondary character with a heart of gold
- Enemies die easily after such a menacing buildup ("Your kill count is 57!? Amazing!" then proceeds to die in one hit in the next scene)
- Quips
- Clumsy character doing clumsy physical jokes
- Scary creatures having average American name (Eldritch horror named Ted? Ha ha so funny 420/10 will laugh again - yeah I know it's Ted Sallis, but they could've went with something less in your face if they wanted to actually wanted to nail the horror theme, like, I don't know, Dr. Sallis? Theodore?)
- Characters somehow bonded in very short span of time
- Convenient solution to every problem as the plot requires it ("oh look a key in a tomb!" "oh monster can kill enemies in one hit!")
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.
loading replies
@bigwillthechamp different stroke for different folks; but sorry for saying that I wish MCU (not Marvel) films and TV dies soon ASAP and a painful one at that, though I know that's not gonna happen. Hollywood blockbusters have always been formulaic, sure, but MCU is just the more-or-less same storytelling with different coating to sell merchandise, and studios are still racing to be the next MCU even in 2022. Disney's business model makes it even worse but I'll spare you my essay.
In 2017 we had Logan, in 2011 we had First Class, in 2008-2012 we had Dark Knight trilogy, and in early 2000s we had Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. You see the diversity in tone and storytelling? But with MCU-infested era, supes films and TVs will always be what some people derogatorily call as "capeshit" and nothing more. Even the more serious one is pretentious, safe-bet of trying-to-look-political-without-actually-being-political nonsense, like Black Panther, because Disney has to appeal to audience as wide as possible, which is a waste of an IP (I welcome political storytelling when it actually is). The Boys is refreshing, but even The Boys attract people who watch it for the capeshit nonsense and not its storytelling.
EDIT: I forgot, about the intent of the filmmakers? Yes, pretending to be a monster film is surely the intent here. Read Giacchino's interview on Men's Health and go watch the trailer. It's crystal clear.
Shout by Harun
For someone who was born in 2001 and not being able to watch Matrix in theaters this movie has a special meaning to me.
Edit: Never mind this was film was a piece of crap
loading replies
@eagleeyex
It was trash. Full stop.
Shout by Theo Saintvoirin
VIP5Pattinson is the best Batman ever.
he is so tortured, his emotions are sincere. He's the darkest and most precise batman out there.the visuals and the soundtrack are incredible and take you into the thoughts of the character.
For me it’s a masterpiece.
loading replies
@theosaintvoirin What drugs did you take before watching this? This is easily the WORST Batman movie ever.
And suddenly this show is about girls getting it done, huh? That’s one way to screw up an interesting premise.
loading replies
@eiduren Hurr durr women bad
Oh the wokeness ... SJW's must love it
loading replies
@eon4dk I finally managed to watch this episode. That's what triggered you?
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.
loading replies
@tesbreag do you know what an unreliable narrator means? An unreliable narrator's credibility has to be compromised in the writing. This episode doesn't show that. If anything: it intends to complete and confirm Mallory's recollection of the events, beginning with the exact same, word-to-word conversation (between Edgar and Black Noir) and details like Countess showing up the last with less bruises and damages than others. It doesn't contradict what the audience knows of the story so far. The narrator himself (Black Noir) is not contradicting himself in his recollection - no gaps in the memory, no uncertainty. If anything the cartoon session begins with the one of them saying that the memory is "buried within" Black Noir, implying certainty.
I just want to thank the cinema gods for this absolute dream. It feels like I passed out and when I came to I could remember a very good and satisfying Batman film.
loading replies
@thoroughmas The cinema gods are punishing us by making this.
This was easily the worst Batman movie ever.
I've never seen a movie that I disliked as much as this, and that includes The Emoji Movie.
Not sure what was worse, the constant whispering (I think Hollywood thinks that makes you look tough, when in reality you just look stupid), the tea candle lighting (I mean really, even the hospital had no lights on) or the fact that they picked the most irrelevant cast for it lol
Maybe you watched a different Batman?
Maybe you actually did pass out and dreamed about literally any other Batman movie?
Shout by Pradipa PR
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.
loading replies
@xaliber And penis jokes and dancing.
Shout by Pradipa PR
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.
loading replies
@xaliber That's what she said.
Shout by JimDarko
VIP7John Krasinski has proven to have a decent level of craftsmanship behind the camera but this movie proves that he should be kept away from screenwriting.
I’m really surprised at a lot of the positive reviews because the plotting and beats in this movie are super dumb. There is a small hint at the level we are working at when we are with Krasinski on “Day 1” where we get a small peek at life before the aliens came and they make a choice to drop in an Easter egg reference to the toy spaceship that gets his child killed from the first one. It’s a seemingly innocuous little call back, foreshadow, wink, knudge, whatever, but it is a perfect example of the types of choices made in this movie. I mean not to ruin anything but essentially an alien pilots a boat in this film. Overall it just bugged me.
loading replies
@jimdarko Watch it again, an alien doesn’t actually drive a boat lol. It was just short scene where he moved it when he was on the front of it.
It was really no big deal.
Shout by JimDarko
VIP7John Krasinski has proven to have a decent level of craftsmanship behind the camera but this movie proves that he should be kept away from screenwriting.
I’m really surprised at a lot of the positive reviews because the plotting and beats in this movie are super dumb. There is a small hint at the level we are working at when we are with Krasinski on “Day 1” where we get a small peek at life before the aliens came and they make a choice to drop in an Easter egg reference to the toy spaceship that gets his child killed from the first one. It’s a seemingly innocuous little call back, foreshadow, wink, knudge, whatever, but it is a perfect example of the types of choices made in this movie. I mean not to ruin anything but essentially an alien pilots a boat in this film. Overall it just bugged me.
loading replies
@abstractlegend I guess the same scenario when someone commits a B&E at your home, and you're caught sleeping upstairs with your pants down. Let's assume you don't own a firearm.... You wake up to the noise, find somewhere safe to hide, remain quiet, pull out your phone, and dial 911. Make sure to put the phone on silent after you hang up though, and again, remain silent!!
Shout by JimDarko
VIP7John Krasinski has proven to have a decent level of craftsmanship behind the camera but this movie proves that he should be kept away from screenwriting.
I’m really surprised at a lot of the positive reviews because the plotting and beats in this movie are super dumb. There is a small hint at the level we are working at when we are with Krasinski on “Day 1” where we get a small peek at life before the aliens came and they make a choice to drop in an Easter egg reference to the toy spaceship that gets his child killed from the first one. It’s a seemingly innocuous little call back, foreshadow, wink, knudge, whatever, but it is a perfect example of the types of choices made in this movie. I mean not to ruin anything but essentially an alien pilots a boat in this film. Overall it just bugged me.
loading replies
@jimdarko "essentially an alien pilots a boat in this film. Overall it just bugged me."
Hey Google, what's "Ocean Current"
LMFAO dude, you just seem to want to hate this movie if you're using that obvious strawman to bash it. hahaha
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.
loading replies
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.
I agree with this. Maybe the only scene that had a really, really good dialogue was the one with Bruce and Carmine.
I think the director and the writers focused too much on what ideas they can take from the comics and mix them all together. That gave us a lot of interesting parts of the plot (Wayne family past, Bruce and Alfred/Selina relationship, Carmine and Penguin business, etc.), but those parts were never fully explored and the dialogue was very flat and shallow.
I wouldn't recommend this movie to people who want The Long Halloween detective-style film, because it feels a bit like a bad adaption of the same comic.
And I also agree about PG-13 rating being a bad thing. The movie was really missing that R rated spark. At the beginning Iof the movie I really felt some Crow vibes, but the more scenes I saw the more.. weird it got without the R rating. And that explosion scene was really bad. No blood and Batman gets blasted in the face and just walks it off like Superman.
You didn't mention the soundtrack. The constant reuse of the main theme didn't help, I don't know why some new movies like to do that. The main theme in the opening was great and it would've been perfect if they left it for the climax, but instead we got DUN DUN DUN DUN every 15 minutes. At least that's how I felt when I watched the movie.
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.
loading replies
I appreciate you, sincerely, sir!
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.
loading replies
Now this is a review. I applaud you sir.
Can't get over how bad this was. An utterly ridiculous premise with so many gaping plot holes, wooden acting and an ending that's telegraphed from the start. A major blot on Finchers portfolio, certainly his worst film and 3 hrs of my life I won't get back.
loading replies
This review is so short and so unexplanative yet it got so many likes.
:joy: That's pretty much a staple of the Trakt Reviews section.
Started ok. Ended up as pile of shit.
loading replies
@jaw72 oh hi, you're here too. Crying fanboy can't take the fact that some people hate the things you love.
