Denis Villenueve. A solid lineup. A different take on first contact. I loved Sicario but went in expecting a cerebral epic sci-fi.
That was a mistake.
Good things:
- Some really nice visual scenes
- Interesting aliens Calligraphy aliens!
- Clear theme of communication is omnipresent
- A neat score that might be awesome in a different movieBad things:
- The acting
- The lack of emotional reaction to ALIENS! The students asking to turn on the TV, all of the main characters
- Lack of useful characters Only the aliens and Louise actually did anything the entire movie.
- Supporting characters are very stupid in an attempt to foil the main character slightly
- Very clumsy exposition. Genre-typical news reports, voice-overs, dumb characters asking stupid questions.
- Very slow pacing. This worked in parts of Sicario, but didn't work in this movie because there was no tension. The main characters never seemed remotely threatened.
- Lousie showing up at school thinking everyone will be there after aliens arrive and there's a state of emergency
- Why can't you translate alien language like you can translate Farsi. This is a paraphrase but in the spirit of what Colonel Weber was saying.
- Useless love interest when the costars have no chemistry.
- Ultrasecure military base lets someone steal a ton of explosives and put it in an ALIEN SPACECRAFT without anyone noticing.
- Many unbelievable plot points
- Poor dialogue Let's make a baby - real quote
- Poor handling of the major plot points Looking through time seems to undermine the fact that the aliens need help. Why did one have to die if they could see the future? Why did only one die when they were right next to each other?
- Very heavy handed moral messaging that didn't align with the rest of the movie.
- Why couldn't Ian also see into the future as he studied the language, or any of the others?Overall extremely disappointing. I'm honestly surprised critics or general moviegoers like this. The premise was very good. It's a real shame the execution failed so miserably.
loading replies
@jared looking at your list it seems to me that you have missed or misunderstood some things but most importantly non linear time, from your comment
Poor handling of the major plot points Looking through time seems to undermine the fact that the aliens need help. Why did one have to die if they could see the future? Why did only one die when they were right next to each other?
This is what I took from it baring in mind I've only seen it once;
Giving humanity the ability to experience time non linearly is the absolute key to humans being able to help the aliens and doesn't undermine anything. It's that ability that shows us 'now' what we need to do to help them in 3000 years so that we can actually do it in the first place. They help us to help them by showing us what we do to help them. Its a paradox just like when Louise experiences talking to the Chinese General and then uses that information to get him to stand down. The aliens teach Louise the ability, or at least gives her everything she needs to learn (the information dump on the wall) which she gives in detail to the world through her book years later.
Why did Abbot (or Costello?) have to die? Because he did die. It happened. You seem to be confusing experiencing time non linearly with something analogous to time travel in that you can change the future. You can't and that conceit is pervasive through the film. He died because he did, just like Hannah. Knowing it can't change it. Why did only one die? Bad luck. How does someone survive anything from a car accident to an earthquake when the person next to them doesn't.
In terms of 'seeing the future' it doesn't make you omnipotent and all knowing. Non linear time puts in to question the notion of 'now' and our path is strewn with paradox particularly when 'now' is a moment that you are experiencing another point in time. You can't change the future but a paradox can be the cause what does happen for example the Chinese General
The alien who survived the blast was only aware of the event to come moments before it happened and knocked on the wall in an attempt to alert what was about to happen and then did a dump of knowledge before knocking them down the shaft and containing the blast. That alien didn't necessarily see the explosion as an event, he could have experienced a moment far ahead of that and it was the fact that the other alien died in the explosion is where he got the knowledge of the event. That is assuming the one that knocked is the one that survived, it could easily have been the one that died that knocked who potentially has always known that he died then. Just like Louise with Hannah. Paradox.
In terms of other things.
The 'useless love interest' was key to the understanding of everything for both Louise and the audience. They have 'no chemistry' because they aren't a love interest in the story and at no point linearly are they portrayed as one. It's not until well after the events of the aliens leaving does anything spark between them. Portraying them that way also keeps the reveal that he is the husband/father. For me the "Lets make a baby" line rings completely true, but I have children.
Why Ian couldn't view time like that? Louise is a linguist and as such grasping a more concise, though limited understanding. By the time the aliens leave she is only just wrapping her head around it. We are also shown that in Ians work he is still focusing heavily on equations. The interactions we see with Ian and the aliens, Ian is essentially Louise's prop i.e. "Ian walks"
Ok that's way more on that than I thought I was going to write and proof reading paradox discussions tends to make you go in circles so I won't and hope it makes sense. It wasn't intended as condescending so I hope it didn't come across that way.
Anyway, it's just a difference of opinion/interpretation.
I really enjoyed the film and it's sparked a lot of interesting discussions in my circles both positive and negative. One of my friends that I thought would absolutely love it fell asleep.
Maybe what I have written is exactly how you saw everything too but still didn't like it, I don't know.
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.
Very disappointed so far. Seems like they just threw a bunch of ideas at the wall hoping something stuck. Four episodes in and didn't care to finish
loading replies
@outspoken @benhanchett both of you completely missing the point that the story is based on a book which came out 16 years ago. Don't watch it if you don't want to, you're only doing a disservice to yourselves, but judging with only 20 minutes of viewing is worse than worse.
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.
This actually is an overall decent finale. The tense in Camina's fleet is good. The Rocinante battle is good. Naomi's rescue is good. The reveal on the end was also good. However there's one reason that makes the episode feels like a jumble of choppily edited scenes: everything involving Alex's death.
I don't take issue with it being sudden and abrupt, as many deaths are. But everyone feels really disconnected from that one incident that should have affected at least all the main casts. Alex just died, but Holden and Naomi spent their time to listen to Naomi's supposed farewell (and spent minutes on it). Amos was more eager to bring Peaches instead of mourning his close friend; even worse he was only informed about Alex's death off screen. For a fellow Martian and somebody who has spent quite a time with Alex, Bobbie seems largely unaffected at all. And Alex, well... The only tribute they gave to this incident is a plaque, which makes for some emotional moment, but that's it. Heck, that part where Holden talked to Naomi to rekindle the events almost feels like Holden breaking the fourth wall to explain to viewers due to how abrupt it is handled.
It almost feels like the event is not supposed to happen, and the showrunners edited in last minutes.
This season has been nothing but a Naomi season that leads to a reunion of Rocinante crew. That incident stuck like a sore thumb, making the supposedly joyful event with all crews gathering feels really emotionally detached. Not to mention that, barring the reveal at the end, most events still happen off screen. Just like most things that happened this season. We don't get to see the impact of something big happening.
So despite being an overall decent episode, this finale closes the relatively most mediocre season The Expanse has produced. I'd even say that the quality is even lower than Season 4. The first four episodes were nice, but it went downhill and stagnated really fast.
loading replies
@dtsouza I watched the season knowing Cas Anvar's scandal. That's why it makes the episode feels even more extremely awkward. Alex's death itself is forcefully edited in that it's not immediately clear that he died from a stroke (so much they need Holden to explain it to the viewers in the next scene). Many have come to defend his abrupt death by mentioning the beeping monitor, but we don't even see the monitor with three dots on the brain except for the very last moments at a glance and very briefly in the start.
I'm aware of that interpretation of the scene you mentioned, but it just didn't work out for me. It only became beautiful for the viewers due to us knowing Cas' scandal, but is not as meaningful for the Rocinante crews themselves. They were still talking about their own (Naomi & Holden) relationship, in the end.
Especially because prior playing Naomi's recording, when they did talk about Alex it was Holden explaining to the viewers how Alex died. That dialogue was really bad. Not to mention that the dialogue was supposed to be Holden explaining Fred's death to Naomi, making it even worse, especially for The Expanse standard.
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.
Absolutely disappointing rehash of the first trilogy. Disney had a real opportunity to do something new and exciting with this ipr but resorted to rushed writing with an extremely compressed story that makes no sense and fails to make anyone care for the characters or events. Emo Kylo is an outstanding metaphor for the whole deal.
loading replies
I couldn't agree with you more...the story is completely crap!
Oh the wokeness ... SJW's must love it
loading replies
@eon4dk I finally managed to watch this episode. That's what triggered you?
The beginning of the episode left me wishing we could've seen more of this side of Star Wars: regular stormtroopers doing their job, getting into action, and all the unseen dynamics rarely mentioned in the mainstream film trilogies. We did have something in that vein: Republic Commando explored the lives of elite Republic clone troopers; Jedi Academy had us follow the lives of youngling under tutelage of Luke's academy; the original Battlefront showed us the transitioning of a republic to an empire through the eyes of the soldiers.
It's the lives of the mundane, the less than extraordinary, yet still gripping and intriguing. They let us dive deeper to the world of Star Wars beyond the flashy buzzing of lightsabers and spectacles of the magical force.
The Mandalorian wished it could be one of those. Unfortunately, it failed terribly.
In episode 5, @ShrimpBoatSteve has said that the series has became too predictable, and I agree - the finale shows how predictable the whole season is. https://trakt.tv/comments/264475
After the long flashback which most parts we've already seen in previous episodes - seemingly making the scenes feels almost like a filler - The Mandalorian episode 8 seems reluctant to set their foot to the ground with its notable world-building as previously seen in Eps 7 and Eps 1 to 3. As I have previously said, after everyone gangs on The Mando (Eps 7), Baby Yoda/Little One's background (who Baby Yoda is, why is he wanted, what the Imperial remnants wanted to do with him, etc) remains unresolved. As the episode shows us Moff Gideon rising with a darksaber in hand, yet another reference moment: every substance the show can possibly offer will be dealt only in Season 2 (or, worse, more).
Stormtroopers in Star Wars have been infamous for their terribly inaccurate shots, but in this episode it feels like their incompetency is amplified to the point of parody and, of course, plot armors. Scout troopers - which is supposed to be snipers - can't shoot droid right in front of their eyes. Instead of coming in squads, troopers only come individually (incinerators burning the building, a few troopers slaughtered by the blacksmith, a few others guarding the tunnel, and the most stupid of all, Moff Gideon waiting for nightfall just for no reason) which makes for a convenient plot armors for our heroes to trek on their way.
Of course, there are casualties - what is a story without something seemingly at a stake? - but it is nothing more than devices to delay the heroes from their trek. Taking cues from Eowyn's "I am no man" of Lord of the Rings fame, in less than moment-defining fashion IG-11, which himself came as a sort of droid ex machina, said that it is no "living being" while resurrecting The Mando from fatal injuries, remedied every possible threat with its healing devices.
Antagonists can be dumb, but there is a limit to dumbness that can suspend audience's disbelief. This episode has antagonist almost feels like they are intentionally dumb and there is nothing really at a stake when everything can be easily remedied.
This episode is not the worst, certainly, as the action sequence is flashy and satisfying. The one near ending where The Mando utilizes a neat jet jump is clever and actually can show the extent Star Wars can be when the director wanted to think creatively beyond the force. Knights of the Old Republic and the aptly named Star Wars Bounty Hunter played with clever tricks similar to this once a while, and the trick doesn't feel cheap as they stand on a very good storytelling.
The Mandalorian's flashy action, regardless, seems to serve only as explicit fanservice - a style over substance.
There are plenty of action, which, by itself, is quite well-done. The consistently hardly imposing threats, unfortunately, dull down the possible thrill those scenes can offer - in a typical corny action heroes such as Gerard Butler's character in Has Fallen trilogy. The scene, for example, with The Blacksmith let us peek into the martial arts capability a Mandalorian can exhibit. But the rather plot armor of incompetent stormtroopers leave no stake at hand; the martial arts dexterity looks more like a cheap imitation of main trilogies of Jedi's acrobatic feats.
Redemption ultimately ends with nothing to be redeemed about, as the people in this show seems to be forever clumsy. From start to finish, everyone made questionable decisions. Nobody blasted the Mando's group with that large amount of stormtroopers. Nobody checked whether Moff Gideon is dead when the fighter was down (Gideon also miraculously survive the crash), with Carga, a supposedly veteran bounty hunter, lightheartedly saying they are already free of the Empire's grasp.
Everything people said in this episode, just like many episodes prior, are not crafted as if the actors were having human conversation. They were rushed by time - they seemingly appear to be set in motion by the plot's demands, to say X so Y happens; to say A when B moment happened.
This episode almost feels like a filler to conclude the dragging episodes this season has been. Screenwriting-wise, this whole season is nothing but bait-and-switch to justify next season(s).
There is much to be said about this kind of terrible business model, where series is written with nothing exactly in mind but to find reasons to continue producing the franchise - the same business model Disney has been using on their MCU franchise and Star Wars films/spinoffs - but the crowds of gladly willing moms awing for Baby Yoda and nerd dads geeking over Star Wars reference doesn't leave enough rooms for those commentaries.
loading replies
@xaliber worst finale & worst show I've seen this year. absolutely no reason to let this garbage run unless you just wanna see liveless muppet being adorkable.
Absolutely disappointing rehash of the first trilogy. Disney had a real opportunity to do something new and exciting with this ipr but resorted to rushed writing with an extremely compressed story that makes no sense and fails to make anyone care for the characters or events. Emo Kylo is an outstanding metaphor for the whole deal.
loading replies
Yep, it got so boring at some point that I almost left the theatre.
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.
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
Shout by stormsm
If you're looking for an action and "turn brain off now" film, just don't watch it and spare us the 6-7 hearts review.
I for one, am very tired from 500$m crap like Indi Day and Marvel's poop. So I was very excited to watch this one.
This one is more like Spielberg's Encounters from the Third Kind. It's more about the characters in the film and the amazing journey they go through. It's mostly about the human behavior that will make you think.
While it's not an End of the World aliens movie like Battle: Los Angeles, it still offers great amount of military presence and plenty of stuff that's going on.
So if you actually want to care about an intelligent movie and use your head - go. Otherwise, go watch an X men.
Highly recommended for some audience 10/10.
2-feb-2017 edit: Just came out on Bluray and I saw it again. Definitely keeping my rating.
Watching again at July-2023, excited towards Dune II : Excellent. Excellent film. So called plot-holes listed here are negligible when the overall product is really thoughtful and masterfully crafted.loading replies
@stormsm jesus fuck why would you think anybody who doesn't love the movie as much as you is a dumb person or having "turned off his brain"? It seems to me that you like things that makes you think like you're smart, which this movie clearly does for you, but that kinda language is unnecessary and people are entitled to their (negative) opinions, just as much as you.
what baffles me is that there are 50 people like you, judging by the number of upvotes. God help us all.
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.
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.
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.
Hmmm, they're starting to drag their feet. We used to have action, this episode was a total bore
loading replies
@ramadri I second @jamatiknakmuay… if you're expecting constant action, you're watching the wrong genre.
Hmmm, they're starting to drag their feet. We used to have action, this episode was a total bore
loading replies
@ramadri This is a science fiction series (Co-Genres: Fantasy, Mystery, Drama, Thriller, Suspense), maybe you should watch an action series instead. This is not "Transformers" (Pseudo-Science-Fiction).
Where did all the production-value go?
The first two episodes dragged me into the world of Star Wars, but after that it‘s all down hill to me. Acting just meh, almost no good looking alien races anymore, heck even the droid from this episode was a pesky human in a bad costume. Just as bad as both of those Twi‘leks and the horned guy - bad actors in bad makeup. I really hope they fix this soon.loading replies
@oddiction the acting ain't that bad but the plot is stupid. Those people make dumb decisions.
Bad series with very unclear story, was a waste of time!
loading replies
@hereistom The reason why you thinks its bad is, because you might not have watched the whole season. I just watched the final and can say that its NO WASTE OF TIME
Absolutely disappointing rehash of the first trilogy. Disney had a real opportunity to do something new and exciting with this ipr but resorted to rushed writing with an extremely compressed story that makes no sense and fails to make anyone care for the characters or events. Emo Kylo is an outstanding metaphor for the whole deal.
loading replies
I've seen people compare this to the Prequels and I really don't understand how anyone can be so ignorant
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.
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.
This actually is an overall decent finale. The tense in Camina's fleet is good. The Rocinante battle is good. Naomi's rescue is good. The reveal on the end was also good. However there's one reason that makes the episode feels like a jumble of choppily edited scenes: everything involving Alex's death.
I don't take issue with it being sudden and abrupt, as many deaths are. But everyone feels really disconnected from that one incident that should have affected at least all the main casts. Alex just died, but Holden and Naomi spent their time to listen to Naomi's supposed farewell (and spent minutes on it). Amos was more eager to bring Peaches instead of mourning his close friend; even worse he was only informed about Alex's death off screen. For a fellow Martian and somebody who has spent quite a time with Alex, Bobbie seems largely unaffected at all. And Alex, well... The only tribute they gave to this incident is a plaque, which makes for some emotional moment, but that's it. Heck, that part where Holden talked to Naomi to rekindle the events almost feels like Holden breaking the fourth wall to explain to viewers due to how abrupt it is handled.
It almost feels like the event is not supposed to happen, and the showrunners edited in last minutes.
This season has been nothing but a Naomi season that leads to a reunion of Rocinante crew. That incident stuck like a sore thumb, making the supposedly joyful event with all crews gathering feels really emotionally detached. Not to mention that, barring the reveal at the end, most events still happen off screen. Just like most things that happened this season. We don't get to see the impact of something big happening.
So despite being an overall decent episode, this finale closes the relatively most mediocre season The Expanse has produced. I'd even say that the quality is even lower than Season 4. The first four episodes were nice, but it went downhill and stagnated really fast.
loading replies
@dtsouza oh for god's sake, save that mediocre exaggerative defense for shows with rabid fans like Mandalorian. Nobody said it has to be done in exaggeration. The death scene only needs to be planned, like Fred's death. Like I said, many deaths were abrupt; what makes the death feels real is how it was edited between the scenes & how others react to it. What we got was obviously a frozen frame of Alex in previous scene with an added CGI blood. It was an unplanned hurried edit that resulted in a bad, chugged in scene.
This is my review so I comment on whatever I wanted. And you're the one who nitpicked that one point regarding Alex's death out of five points I've written. Then the problem is on you.
I'm beginning to think the writing team only had three good episodes in them. Getting predictable and drawn out.
loading replies
@jim222001 after seeing that "partner" everyone knew that he will betray the traitor.
Absolutely disappointing rehash of the first trilogy. Disney had a real opportunity to do something new and exciting with this ipr but resorted to rushed writing with an extremely compressed story that makes no sense and fails to make anyone care for the characters or events. Emo Kylo is an outstanding metaphor for the whole deal.
loading replies
@Jim222001 The problem is that it left very little to give away, not that other way around. It was written in that very Disney/JJ Abrams manner - their entire story was divulged in one or two lines, usually in the introduction to the character. The amount of 'my grandfather' and 'our son' introductions is an example of this, it's one of the first things they teach you not to do in screenplay school, and the backstories of each character were often told to us almost as if they were speaking their autobiography, rather than actually showing us. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, using the word 'hater' is just a way to duck any obligation of logical retort on your part, but it wasn't a good film. A fun film fans will love, yes, but not a good film by more general standards and hopefully not the Star Wars we're going to keep getting. It needs a little less Michael Bay and a little more... well.. Rian Johnson hopefully.
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
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.
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.
