Aaaand again, I accidently tappedthe frickin she slider which counts as a review.... which MetaC won't let me delete. Ridiculous. I didn't see the movie, so ignore this.
Metacritic has the remarkably dumb policy of not letting users delete reviews when the user accidentally taps the score slider. So this is a meaningless review. Ignore it and complain to Metacritic.
I've noticed a lot of user reviews talked about the politics of the movie, but I think they're missing the point. The politics are really just a backdrop for an unusual father-daughter (and to some degree mother) relationship. In fact, the politics are very vague – all you know is there are leftist terrorists who seem to be fighting what they perceive as a right-wing police state. But the movie spends no time at all delving into the *actual* political issues. What it spends most of its time on is a father who's *deeply* concerned about his daughter's safety. I don't want to give spoilers, so suffice it to say the movie is obviously an indictment of racism, but it's never explicit – it's just evident through the actions of the characters – and as mentioned, the vague politics have almost nothing to do with the central conflict of dad trying to protect daughter from not just the gov't but specifically from a lawless Colonel whose motives I won't spoil. The acting is predictably fantastic. There are a few good laughs, but I wouldn't call this a comedy. Almost everyone has time to shine. I wish Teyana Taylor had more screen time – she was mesmerizing, and I wanted to get to know her character better. The action in the final act had me literally on the edge of my seat. If you understand that the politics aren't the point (and if you don't bring your own political baggage to this), there's a considerable amount to enjoy in this frenetic, funny, and most importantly poignant film.
For a low-budget indie production, this movie is decent, but it's marred by tropes, contrivance, expository dialogue, weak acting, and weak direction. I'm not saying it's terrible – I consider 5/10 to be average – but only watch if you have time to kill and don't have anything else queued up that you've been wanting to see. They clearly put a lot of effort into the visual aspects of this movie, and they did a good job given the presumably low budget. But, unfortunately, the most important aspects of movie-making – script, direction, acting – are weaker than the visuals. They use heavy-handed dialog to deliver an overdone message about the consequences of humans destroying the environment. And to make matters worse, the director has the actors rush through much of the dialog, so we're sort of bludgeoned with information that doesn't have time to stick. And the editing is often frenetic to the point of feeling like a music video. All this makes the pace of much of the film feel rushed. The only good actor is the pharma CEO. He was the only one who was somewhat believable. Wish his actions weren't so predictable. Most of the cast is mediocre – a couple are just plain bad. The Fix feels like a well-done student film. As such, it doesn't really offer anything notable, but it's not terrible. (P.S. You should probably disregard all the reviews posted before mine. Looking at the profiles associated with each review reveals that the viewable profiles only have one review which is for this movie. That strongly implies the reviews were posted by friends/family/crew of the production or by bots. Disappointingly, I see this happen with these small indie films sometimes, and it doesn't reflect well on the filmmakers.)
This movie has a very limited target demographic. People with little to no familiarity with tech CEOs probably won't last more than 20 minutes before clicking away, and people knowledgeable about tech CEOs will either nod and smile in agreement or see this as thinly-veiled preaching that they don't need to hear. I fall into the later category. Of the four CEOs, Venis and Jeff are clearly analogs for Elon Musk and Sam Altman (the analogs for the other two aren't as apparent). The behavior and actions of the CEOs (3 of them, anyway) feels like a heavy-handed message, and that took me out of the story. Yes, some tech billionaires are sociopathic narcissists (and some are not). Yes, they have too much power. But, of the relatively small audience for Mountainhead, whose minds need changing about that? That said, the dialog and acting are good, but not enough to make the whole movie good when I feel like I'm watching a morality play whose subtext has the subtlety of a teenage poem. Despite Mountainhead being labeled a dark comedy, I didn't laugh a single time (though Carell and Schwartzman have made me laugh plenty in the past). There's a twist that happens about 2/3 of the way through, and what followed made me grin a couple of times, but that's it. Mountainhead is an ok distraction that will probably make some viewers cheer in agreement, but it would've worked much better if it hadn't been little more than a facile spoof of today's tech headlines.
Is there any other director in US history whose first film became an instant classic and everything that followed was a mere shadow of that first film? I don't understand what motivates MNS to make movies at this point. This movie seemed like a thinly veiled attempt to elevate his daughter's music and acting career (and I'm afraid the prospects for either aren't good). The degree of contrivance in Trap is so high that I just started mocking the film (the only reason I finished it was because my teen daughter wanted to). We learn very quickly that Dad is a bad guy, so the story becomes a question of how Dad is gonna escape the trap, and he's got to be luckiest murderer ever as a string of serendipitous events occurs that help him evade authorities. But how all the evasion happens is just one contrivance after another. I'm willing to suspend disbelief for your premise (that the FBI would set up a sting operation at a concert with over 20,000 people) if the way people behave is realistic, but the whole thing rang false, especially the fact that the FBI agents have all these conversations in places that any of the hundreds of employees at the stadium could get to. The direction is highly self-conscious, which isn't unusual for MNS, and has these randomly weird moments where he decides to have the actors talk in an exaggerated way while looking directly into the camera. It only happens a few times, but it's just stilted and awkward. The acting is subpar with the only exception being the mom (the daughter is ok but one-dimensional). For me, this ranks at or near the bottom of MNS' films. The only thing I liked was that it didn't end when I thought it would, so there was a brief period near the end where I didn't feel it was predictable, but the ending itself was yet another contrivance (when you see it, ask yourself what the FBI would *actually* do after capturing someone in that situation). Like many MNS movies, this one has a premise with potential that was squandered.
Why is it so rare for a movie to have a message *and* a payoff? LtWB has such a good setup -- it masterfully cranks the mystery up in a steady, slow burn. But near the end, Roberts' character has a monologue that basically beats the viewer over the head with the movie's message (which was already fairly clear), ***** SPOILER FOLLOWS *******
and the denouement -- or rather the lack thereof -- is just another cramming of the message down our throats with no payoff. Ok, the daughter happily found what she was complaining about missing the whole movie, but they didn't have to end there. Ending where they did made so much of the mystery feel like red herrings. In particular, what the hell was up with the deers? Changing migration patterns doesn't turn deers into freakishly brave human stalkers. The first 2/3 of the movie was so fun and mysterious, but it was like riding a roller coaster where you just about to reach the final corkscrew, and the cart just stops, then they tell you to wait while they position stairs next to your cart, then you have to just carefully walk down the stairs... and that's it -- that's the end of the roller coaster ride. Please give us the message AND the payoff. P.S. Ignore the misinformed Obama remarks in reviews. Here's an excerpt from a Forbes interview with LtWB director Sam Esmail:
"I think the silly thing about the [conspiracy theories about the Obamas’ involvement] is President Obama really came on a couple of months before we started shooting, so the script had basically been written and done,” he continued. “He obviously gave notes on the script, but the bones of the story and the sequences were already written. I would just say they’re pretty wrong in terms of his signaling. It had nothing to do with that."
It's a disjointed, ridiculous mess, but it's a *fun*, disjointed, ridiculous mess. As you watch the first 35 minutes which keeps the camera stationary and focused on the yule log, the title makes sense, and you might think the whole movie will be one long, uninterrupted shot. But the director eventually decides to go with the more traditional multi-camera approach, and things actually get weirder once the camera stops focusing on the fireplace. The 2nd-rate actors distracted me from the proceedings at first, but the ridiculousness of it all made me eventually stop caring about acting chops. Without giving away details, suffice it to say we get a hodgepodge of twisted, apparently unrelated events and villains who appear to have separate agendas and serve no purpose other than to make the hapless renters of the cabin suffer. I kept wondering what would happen next -- the proceedings are not predictable. Unfortunately, their unpredictability is a function of their pointlessness, but if you just sit back and let the insanity happen without trying too hard to make sense of it, you can have some fun. Just pop some corn and watch the craziness unfold.
Don't let the overt "Beauty and the Beast" reference throw you -- this is *not* a BatB retread. The BatB reference is actually an unhelpful distraction, IMO. The only similarities are superficial (names/places); the stories are completely different. There is real emotional depth to this film, and it has nothing to do with Hollywood love stories. Some of the messages about life in the internet age are a bit heavy-handed, but they're nonetheless true. The thrust of the film is about dealing with trauma and the necessity of connecting with people in the *real* world to actually deal with that trauma. We can all relate to wanting to run/hide from our pain whether it be via VR or something more self-destructive (drugs, alcohol). The movie also cleverly creates a mystery whereby we and the characters are all trying to figure out who the mysterious Beast is IRL. It's quite engaging. The voice acting is top-notch, and the animation is exceptional -- at times, breathtaking. There are scenes where the music and the visuals combine to produce deeply moving moments. You'd have to be a robot not to be moved by the final song scene in the "U" world. Forget BatB and just enjoy Belle on its own terms. You'll be glad you did.
There is a clear desire amongst Batman movie directors to make each incarnation of Batman darker, edgier, and, as evidenced by this movie, more depressed. The fact that Nirvana's "Something in the Way" -- a veritable anthem of depression -- is used prominently in at least a couple of scenes is evidence of the vibe director Matt Reeves was going for. That's not necessarily bad, but you'll have to accept that vibe as being fundamental to Bruce's nature to enjoy this movie. Thankfully, Pattinson spends most of his screen time as Batman rather than Bruce. When he is Bruce, he doesn't seem at all like the incredibly wealthy playboy/philanthropist he's supposed to be. Given the humanitarian mission of Wayne Enterprises, it's pretty bizarre that its CEO would *always* look like he's contemplating suicide. He's trying to fool the public, right? That said, the emphasis on Batman as detective was welcome. He's supposed to be an incredibly smart guy, and Reeves really lets Batman show his smarts here. And, of course, he wouldn't be Batman without his amazing fighting chops. The fight scenes here are just remarkable. The fight choreo is the best of any Batman movie, IMO. Kudos to the stunt people in this film! I also appreciated that Reeves shows that, despite Batman's remarkable physical ability, he's still human and has his limits, which are definitely tested here. The story is mostly interesting, but it tries to tackle too much. The movie chooses to introduce us to Batman, Cat Woman, The Riddler, Penguin, and Falcone (and technically The Joker, though just as a brief sequel teaser). It touches on their backstories, but it didn't feel like any of their backstories got the time they deserve. And this shifting about across characters had me drifting off a bit somewhere in the middle; things felt a little unfocused. Speaking of which, the movie doesn't justify its nearly 3-hour runtime. Given the long runtime, I wish they *did* focus more on backstories, but there are some overlong and unnecessary scenes which didn't add to the narrative. Still, this is a solid entry into the Batman catalog, and with a few tweaks, I'm hopeful that the next installment (which will almost certainly feature The Joker) will be even better.
Your enjoyment of this movie will probably depend largely on your age and how much you were expecting a space story. I'm several years younger than the protagonist, Stan, but I still remember enough about the time period to enjoy the references to late '60s America. And while I was expecting this to be more space-centric, I wasn't bothered by the fact that visiting the moon was merely the backdrop for a warm-hearted, nostalgic look at family and coming of age. The absurd premise -- that NASA gets a 10-year-old to fly to the moon *without* anyone (including his parents) knowing -- is laid out early, so you can decide right away whether you wanna go along for the ride. If you go along, you'll quickly realize that the space trip isn't the point. Stan's recollections about coming of age during a magical time in American history are delivered by the narrator with a cozy familiarity that belies the absurd premise. And I found myself smiling almost the entire time. I think the choice to animate over live-action only helped this film. The slightly surreal look supports the surreal story -- putting a perfectly normal kid in a preposterous situation but somehow making the situation feel normal. The acting feels very natural, and there's easy comedy that comes from lots of regular, real-life moments. In particular, Stan's mom's occasional, blunt outbursts made me giggle. Apollo 10½ just made me feel good, and if you were alive during the late '60s or even early '70s, you'll probably also feel good watching it.
Medieval soap opera. That's not necessarily a pejorative. This is a film about relationships, treachery, and, yes, ****. But if you look at this as *only* being about ****, you'll miss out on the range of emotions at play. With Ridley Scott involved, you know a film will at least look great, and TLD does (Damon's mullet notwithstanding :-D). Lots of warm, candlelit interiors and gray, somber exteriors help define moods and help us imagine life in 14th-century France. The cast is predictably good. Jodie Comer is given the most to work with from the script and is the stand out. Driver is solid and Affleck, whose part is minor, is surprisingly good as the entitled, nepotistic, petty Count Pierre. Damon showed the least range, but I think that was how his character was written. If you've seen Rashomon or The Affair, you'll be familiar with the multiple-perspective style of the narrative here. This doesn't work for some who feel that they're just watching the same story over and over, but the point is to pay attention to the differences, sometimes nuanced. Some will notice that Lady Marguerite's version of the story is subtly but noticeably labeled as "The truth", which is actually disappointing and reveals at least part of the film's intent. It's disappointing in that it removes ambiguity and tells the viewer that the men's perspectives which we just watched were not truthful (as far as the writer and director were concerned). This makes the movie feel like it's more about virtue signaling than it is about the complexities of human interaction. Marguerite's version very well may be the truth, but the writers certainly don't *know* the truth -- no one who has lived any time over the last 6 centuries can know the truth about this situation. What's the point of highlighting Marguerite's version as "The truth"? Obviously, **** is wrong regardless of nuance. Nevertheless, I found myself wrapped up in the story and found TLD an interesting, enjoyable watch, though probably won't view again.
I REALLY wanted to like this movie -- The Matrix is one of my all-time fave movies -- but Resurrections is ham-fisted and heavy-handed with poor direction, editing, cinematography, and sound design. It feels surprisingly amateurish. The brief flashbacks of the original Matrix are a literal reminder of how much better that movie was than this. "Resurrections" is the perfect word to use in the title because rather than an installment that propels the story forward, it's a rehash that simultaneously relies on fans' knowledge of the previous films while borrowing heavily from them. The whole thing feels like low-budget fan fiction. There are too many ancillary characters who aren't fleshed out. Most of them aren't given more than a handful of lines. This neither fleshes out their character nor propels the story (such as it is) forward. Oh, and the story... I saw another reviewer say that if you don't like this movie, it's because you're not intelligent enough to understand it. Another possibility is that if you think everyone else is too dumb to understand it, maybe you're just too dumb to realize how simplistic and two-dimensional the story is. What we get here is just a 2021 version of "tech is bad" and "what's reality?" It's really not hard to understand what Lana W. is saying/asking. Unfortunately, the movie does nothing to truly explore those concepts; it just gives us lazily regurgitated Matrix tropes. Despite its 2.5-hour length, it has very little to say, and despite my love for the Neo-Trinity story, their relationship was not moved forward in any way. One big complaint is that Carrie Ann Moss is criminally underused here. She's the best actor of the franchise, IMO, yet we hardly see her. And what's really unfortunate is that when she's pulled into the climax of the story, her character inexplicably changes in ways that make no sense at all given everything that led up to those changes. So, she's underused AND *mis*used. Overall, Resurrections is a big disappointment for this Matrix fan, and if you're someone who hasn't seen the original trilogy, Resurrections will leave you befuddled and wishing you had that 2.5 hours of your life back. I'm sad to say that while it's not a train wreck, it's just not worth your time.
Don't expect to crack a smile at any point in this movie. Even the lightest moments where Ruth (Bullock) and Blake (Bernthal) are starting to hit it off aren't really light enough to lift the dark pall from the proceedings. It's mostly a dark, intense, depressing ride. I had planned on watching only about 30 minutes of the film because it was late and I was planning to go to bed soon, but I was **** into the story. That said, there were some subplots that seemed superfluous, particularly Ruth's relationship with Blake. It didn't serve to move the story forward in any meaningful way. Likewise, the subplot with Steve, Keith, and Steve's wife seemed unnecessary, though it hinted at a deeper story with those characters; it felt like a subplot that would've been fleshed out in a book. There are some implausible aspects of the story which detracted from its believability. The most glaring came after the big reveal -- which I won't spoil -- but the choice Ruth made after the Sheriff's death 20 years ago really doesn't make sense to me, and the film exists solely because of that choice. When you see the reveal, think about how the legal system works, and think about what would've been a much more reasonable choice on Ruth's part. It just wasn't necessary for her life to turn out like it did. I was distracted by Ruth's age -- or, rather, the fact that Bullock played her. Ruth says she spent half her life (20 years) in prison, so she's supposed to be 40-ish. Well, Bullock looks great for 57, but she looks *botox* great -- she does *not* look 40. The casting (or the age of her character) didn't make sense there. The acting and production values are mostly excellent. Bullock does a great job of playing someone hardened by 20 years of jail time, though her portrayal occasionally feels too constrained in certain scenes. Bernthal, who has a tendency to overact in everything he does, felt more natural in this than in most things I've seen him in. Viola Davis was superb as the lawyer's wife, but her role was disappointingly small. Despite the film's flaws (and its trite though emotional ending), it works as a mostly absorbing drama.
At nearly 2.5 hours, the movie ends right at the beginning of Venus' professional career at age 14 -- to say nothing of Serena, of course. While the movie obviously focuses on the father, it felt oddly clipped to end right at the beginning of the career of two sports legends. Smith does an admirable job as Richard, though he occasionally overacts. But you definitely feel and learn about Richard's humanity (the good and bad). The standout in this film is Aunjanue Ellis who plays the Williams mom, Brandi. She is by far the most believable, nuanced character; each of her scenes ground the film in reality. The best scene of the movie is where she and Richard get into an argument about their respective roles in the relationship and their impact on the girls' lives. She drives the scene, and Smith is (wisely) the passenger. Most of the other actors are either too amateurish or too over-the-top. Bernthal's portrayal of coach Rick was disappointingly cartoonish. As a biopic, it suffices, yet I rarely felt an emotional connection to Richard. I realize he was the driving force in the incredible rise of the Williams sisters, but I can't help but wonder if the story would've been more compelling if it were told from Brandi's perspective.
If you want a quick comparison to the Lynch version, Villeneuve's version is worlds better, and I say that as a Lynch admirer. Keep in mind that this movie is just part one (we're gonna have to wait two years for part two ️).The world-building is so convincing and believable, and there are no caricatures here. Speaking of which, Skarsgård's portrayal of the Baron is menacingly, mesmerizingly believable unlike the exaggerated portrayal by Kenneth McMillan in Lynch's version (Skarsgård's portrayal and Ferguson's portrayal of Jessica are my favorites of the the film). Can't wait to see more of the Baron in part two. Everything is so lovingly, carefully crafted here. In some ways, almost too crafted. While there's a feeling of dread that pervades almost the entire movie, there's also a coldness and sterility that underlies much of the film, which is mostly what keeps Dune from being a 10 for me. The coldness/sterility is by no means overwhelming; in fact it's subtle. But I just didn't feel the emotional impact in certain parts that I should've felt. It's not the fault of the actors, who were top-notch, but rather the direction and/or the script. We don't get time to experience whatever it is that bonds some of these characters. **** SPOILER ALERT **** E.g., I know that Paul loves his father and loves Duncan, but when they died, and Paul reacted with great dismay and despair, it just didn't hit me as strongly as it should have. The other thing that knocked it down (probably just half a point) was that the music started to become grating. By the time Paul and his mother meet the Fremen, I was sick of hearing that same theme -- the woman singing with the abrasive tone -- over and over... played rather loudly. I'm well aware of music being used to shape the drama, but I felt that that theme was overused. But those are quibbles. Dune is a great story told in a fascinating universe, and Villeneuve has brought to screen the most believable version of the story yet. If part two is at least this good, it'll be well worth the wait.
When my daughter asked to watch this, I begrudgingly agreed expecting yet another brainless, lazy fart-joke kids' movie. But I was very pleasantly surprised by the wonderful mixture of clever humor and heart. I actually LOLed at multiple jokes, and appreciated the acknowledgement that tech is neither inherently good nor bad (big tech ignoring your privacy and taking over your life: bad -- daughter using tech to make movies that express her creativity and emotions: good). This is one of those rare movies where I'm totally happy to let my kids watch it, and I'm totally happy to watch it with them.
Weak story with strong acting. The fundamental question of the movie is not really a difficult question to answer (I won't spoil it by saying what the question is), and that's part of the movie's problem. It's not much of a dilemma. Yes, the crew feels terrible because they're presumably not monsters, but I'm not sure what the writers thought was worth exploring here. Anna Kendrick as the ship's doctor is unsurprisingly the moral center, and the movie exists solely because of her character's choices. As the story progresses, there are some contrivances which don't help the already slight story feel more real, but the director and actors still manage to squeeze some believable drama out of the proceedings. The acting is quite good -- I was surprised by the casting of Kendrick, but she did great -- and it's what makes the movie worth watching. I found Collette and Anderson especially believable. Note that this is *not* a feel-good movie, so go into this with the right state of mind to handle... depressing events.
Your reaction to this film will rely largely on two things:
1) Your expectations. 2) Your patience. This movie does not follow Hollywood conventions, so if you want the standard Hollywood storytelling approach, you won't like this. And related to that is the fact that the first half of the film plays like a documentary and, hence, doesn't have a clear narrative arc. What you see is the life of a young mother and daughter and the people in their immediate orbit living at/below the poverty line. The realism achieved is truly remarkable, especially the way the children spend their time -- like all kids, they only know their own extremely limited experience, and they figure out how to have fun without showing any signs of deprivation. Despite the mother's limited ability to provide for her daughter, we never see signs of her love for her daughter faltering, even when her situation becomes dire. If you're patient and just accept the slow pace of the first half, you'll reap the rewards of that patience. Just let the remarkably realistic performances wash over you. The kids are fantastic, but I also give kudos to director Sean Baker for eliciting these utterly natural/realistic performances from all the kids -- I'd guess that Baker filmed many hours of the children playing without strict direction in order to capture the way kids play in real life. I don't believe I've ever seen a more natural, believable performance from a child than I saw from Brooklynn Prince (Monee). It all feels very slice-of-life until a pivotal event about 3/4 through the movie involving the mother and another mother in the motel. The consequences of that event unfold in an equally realistic fashion, and the drama heightens, but still in a very realistic, non-sensational way. I won't say what happens, but in a scene when authorities become involved, I eventually was moved to tears. At the end of the movie, I realized that my strong reaction was largely due to the investment of time in the movie's first half -- I felt that I had experienced a great deal of the protagonists' real lives, and when their lives became disrupted, I felt the heartbreaking effects of that investment. Some will feel cheated by the ending of the movie, but I thought it was just right. Again, this film doesn't adhere to the standard Hollywood approach, and as such, it doesn't hand you a clear-cut, tied-in-a-bow ending. But this movie never tries to be a feel-good flick -- it's showing you the reality experienced by a portion of the US who is barely mentioned/acknowledged in pop culture. Again, your expectations matter here. Know that the ending is a metaphor for the feelings/desires of Monee who is reacting to the news of what feels like a traumatic life change. If you're open to this kind of ending, just make sure to have tissues ready.
Please don't pay attention to the *awful* trailer used here on Metacritic. This movie is really a character study about people living what they feel are dead-end lives. They (specifically Travolta's character, Tony) use the nightclub as a place to try to elevate their status and give some meaning to what feels like a meaningless life. It's surprisingly moving, especially as Tony starts to show his vulnerability. SNF made Travolta a superstar not merely by association with the music craze but by his ability to convincingly convey the nuances of Tony's character. The music and dancing became a cultural phenomenon and is, of course, dated now. If you look past the disco stereotypes and focus on the characters, you'll find this to be a movie with an emotional impact that still resonates.
The trailer for this had me thinking this was gonna be yet another brainless, Nickelodeon-type kid's "comedy", so when my daughter asked to watch, I only said yes begrudgingly. Turns out the trailer misrepresented the quality of the humor and acting in this. I was pleasantly surprised that this was genuinely funny -- not tears-in-your-eyes funny, but still elicited a good number of laughs. The cast is really strong; the dad was much funnier than what you see in the trailer. Early on, there's a scene aimed at parents where he's waiting in his car singing "Where Have All the Cowboys Gone?" by Paula Cole that had me LOLing. Despite a good number of jokes that went over the kids' heads, I wouldn't opt to view this on my own, but if you're gonna watch something with kids (probably age 10+), you can feel better about this option than much of the Nick/Disney pap with similar concepts but far fewer laughs and far worse acting.
Rarely funny and very uneven. Despite the likability of Downey and Zach, they couldn't rise above the unfunny material. There were too many jarring tonal shifts that felt extremely clumsy. It's a shame these two talents were wasted on such forgettable material.
Cheesy but passable Hollywood action flick with lots of blood. It's competently directed and acted (mostly), but it's marred by cliche dialogue and one-liner philosophizing. It took over an hour for me to care about any of the characters, and even then, there wasn't much to care about. Copley, the ex-CIA operative, was the most nuanced character but had very little screen time. I'm no fan of big pharma, but I don't like to be bludgeoned over the head with the "big pharma is bad!" message. "Merrick" (an obvious reference to real-life Merck) is the pharma company trying to bottle/sell immortality. Its owner is too cartoonish a villain to be believable. Even Thanos had more humanity than this guy. The end is an obvious setup for a sequel and/or franchise, but they're gonna have to come up with a much better script for me to be interested in what happens to these people. What saved this from getting a rating in the red is that the whole affair was competently produced/directed/acted. The fight scenes are well choreographed, and there's a thrilling couple of seconds near the end that involve two people falling out of a window. The material, however, is just lazily written.
Lazy, cynical writing amounted to no laughs for me. Half way through, I started fast-forwarding because I did not laugh a single time up to that point. Baldwin's comic timing and delivery are always good, but it's lipstick on a pig; the script is just not funny. Dropping f-bombs does not a comedy make. And I don't know why Hayek was cast in this. She's even less funny than the script. And the comic ability of Jim Gaffigan was utterly wasted. The few attempts at warmth fell flat. You can't have your characters act like moronic, self-absorbed a-holes and expect the audience to have any emotional connection to them. Thoroughly disappointed by this movie.
tl;dr: If you liked Netflix's Bright, you'll like this. 90% style, 10% substance (and sub-par in both categories). If you want an interesting narrative with fleshed out characters who elicit emotional responses, look elsewhere. With Foxx (Art) and Levitt (Frank) involved, this film had me expecting much more -- can't help but think they signed up strictly for the money because the script is banal. I was hopeful at the start because it seemed as if Foxx really might play "the bad guy", but you quickly learn that's not the case. That said, Foxx does what he can with the hackneyed script. Levitt seems miscast -- felt like he phoned it in. The actress who plays Robin (Dominique Fishback) was just painfully amateurish. The biggest problem was that we were supposed to feel something for Robin and her ill mother, and we *should* have felt something for Art and his daughter, but the film fails miserably at getting the viewer invested in their lives and emotions. This felt like a B(minus)-movie with a couple of A-list leads. It gets an extra point or two for (self-conscious) style -- the scene with the frozen woman was fun -- but serves as little more than distraction.
Decidedly ambiguous take on mental illness. While there are moments/scenes where it's difficult to know if what we're seeing is actually happening, Sarah's descent becomes more obvious as the movie progresses, though some might want the see the ending as "proof" that Sarah was sane. Brie is spectacular as Sarah. It feels like she plays Sarah's descent just right. Despite what appears to be Sarah's clear mental decline, I found myself wondering in the dream-like sequence toward the end whether some of what I was seeing was really happening in the movie's reality. It feels like that was intentional -- I assume the goal was to make the viewer experience the same difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy as Sarah was experiencing. While Horse Girl might leave things too open-ended for some viewers, those who are ok with ambiguity will appreciate the overall excellent execution. I found myself pondering the film and it's imagery well after the credits rolled.
"Only" feels like a well-done student film... which is intentionally faint praise. It's the story of Eva and Will, a couple trying to keep safe during a pandemic whose virus only kills females. It starts off fairly promising by quickly showing the gravity/danger of harboring a healthy (or just living) woman, but it almost as quickly starts to disappoint. There are some just plain stupid decisions made by the couple that unnecessarily put Eva in danger. They both know her life is in danger; so why go out in public for things like grocery store runs and diner waffles? Those contrivances felt like lazy writing looking for conflict. Too much of the movie relies on TV news reports and flashbacks as expository devices. And the time jumps don't do much to clarify the narrative -- I felt like seeing the events in chronological order would've worked better. Some quibbles:
1) Music is used too much to try to create drama. Just felt like it was trying to make up for the *lack* of drama.
2) Note to directors: *Please* stop doing shaky cam -- it's *such* a tired mechanic. The ultimate problem is that "Only" takes far too long to get us emotionally invested in Will and Eva's plight. It isn't until there were just 15 minutes left that we finally see some real emotion from Eva (which was a flashback). When Eva breaks down, I finally felt what she must've been feeling, but it was too little too late.
Formulaic, Hollywood pap tied up in a formulaic, Hollywood bow. The people you think are the bad guys, are... the people you think will be redeemed, will be... all in the most predictable, mind-numbing, contrived, explosion-filled way possible. If you like all that, then this movie is for you, but I can't stand it. I gave it a 2 instead of 1 because of production values and a couple of brief moments that didn't feel like the actors were just completely phoning it in. Honestly, just a waste of time.
The Voices is billed as a black comedy, but I didn't laugh at all, and I *love* dark humor. The only times I even grinned were when the protagonist, Jerry (Ryan Reynolds), talked with his boss -- Reynolds knows how to make those light moments funny. When the killing started, there was absolutely nothing humorous about it (and I have definitely laughed at killing in other more skillfully directed black comedies).
With this kind of material, the director needs to be especially deft with tonal shifts, but the tone almost never felt right to me. I bumped my rating up a couple of points for Reynolds performance and the film's refreshing weirdness, but it's only worth watching if you're bored and can watch for free, IMO.
Unfulfilled potential. The setup was promising: a water-starved populace demands access to water, and riots break out while a bank heist is going down. One of the thieves gets shot, and his brother takes them to an underground (figuratively) hospital that only services criminals. Once they get to the hospital, the plot thickens, but it never gels. Unfortunately, everything is barely hinted at rather than being given the time to flesh out. The critical plot piece revolves around the nurse's son, but all we ever learn is what happened to him -- there is no emotional connection, hence little reason to care. The movie progresses like a series of snapshots with almost no context and threads left untied. We learn that there is history, but we know nothing about it, so we aren't invested. It's a missed opportunity that mainly gets points for style and casting and is only worth watching if you can view for free.
A profound sense of dread and foreboding permeate this film. It's expertly acted and directed, but I found the narrative rather lacking -- it seemed the director was going for atmosphere above all (and he succeeded!). If you're easily depressed, I don't think you should watch this film; there isn't a light moment to be found -- it just broods from start to finish, and gets more hopeless as it goes. Even when Kat sings a lovely song at the talent show, it feels like something bad is happening. And the murders that eventually occur are just pitilessly realistic. So, if you're ok being left with a deep sense of despair, it's worth watching for the ample talents on display, but you'll get no sense of hope and a story that feels lacking.
Hypnotic and mysterious sci-fi drama. It's brooding and deliberately paced; look elsewhere if you want action/thrills. You should go into this movie knowing as little as possible about the details; the story unfolds in some surprising ways. It's, in part, a meditation on love, loss, and the lengths we're willing to go to assuage our grief. Story was a bit confusing in a couple of spots, but made sense in the end. Excellent acting all around.
By now, you've undoubtedly read at least several reviews of Into The Spider-Verse. I'll simply underscore that it's an outstanding achievement -- exceptional in every way. It's bursting with life in ways that most live-action movies can't even achieve. Story, animation, direction, voice-acting... it's all excellent (and surprisingly moving at a couple of moments). Just watch it and enjoy.
Excellent, tense sci-fi thriller. The best sci-fi, IMO, is allegorical as Captive State certainly is. The alien invasion could just as well be, say, the **** occupying Poland, but the suspense is enhanced by the mysteriousness of the aliens -- the unknown is always more frightening. The tension starts within minutes of the movie's beginning, and it slowly escalates over the next 1.5 hours till a climactic scene (which I won't divulge); things subsequently calm down in what seems a sort of epilogue... until there's a surprise (which I won't divulge :-) ). The direction style felt a lot like District 9. I understand some of the criticism about character development, but it's not really a character-driven story. It's about the human desire for freedom and the lengths to which some people will go to obtain that freedom. It's conceptually similar to the tv series Colony: people make choices about the kind of life they want to live and whether it's worth giving up that life for a greater good. It's certainly not surprising to know that some people will always choose to fight for freedom, and we go into Captive State knowing this, but we can still enjoy the ride. The movie doesn't spell everything out for you, which I appreciate, but some might find it frustrating at certain moments where you have to fill in the blanks. It's an intelligent thriller with excellent performances (wish Vera Farmiga were featured more) and an ending which most will find satisfying.
A ground-breaking classic. It's a sly criticism of then-current-day England through the lens of a famous historical quest... and it's just silly. The phrase "It's just a flesh wound" was one of the most stolen/over-used jokes of my childhood. The film is an exercise in absurdity, and if you don't like absurd, this film won't work for you, but for me there are multiple laugh-out-loud moments.
A tale of true heroism is unfortunately marred by an hour-long buildup of religio-patriotic hokum. I get that Eastwood wanted to show what led these men to take the action they took, but it feels more like flag-waving hero worship than realistic biopic. Some of the dialogue is hopelessly stilted, especially when the boys are young and talking with each other. Sorry, boys -- and kids in general -- just don't talk like that.
That said, the confrontation in the train is truly dramatic, and Eastwood's direction shines here... except for Stone's thumb. I mean, we get it; his thumb got effed up. WE GET IT, Clint.
The final scene was genuinely moving, and I found myself actually tearing up. The heroism of these men can't be denied, and the speech given by the French official should move anyone with a pulse.
It seems there's a clear intent in this sequel which differentiates it from its predecessor and which is surprisingly not mentioned in many reviews. Yes, it's essentially a comedy, but it clearly has a message of tolerance and forgiveness at its core. This slowly makes itself evident but becomes obvious by the movie's end. I didn't laugh as much as I did in the first movie, but I still laughed a lot and even had my heart warmed as the events of the Lego world revealed themselves as the product of the conflict (and ultimate resolution thereof) between siblings.
Bird Box had me creeped out for most of its length until the emotional finale. It's basically a psychological drama in horror film's clothing. The tension/creepiness factor are high for most of the movie as its timeline switches back and forth between present and past. We learn that Malorie (Bullock) is/was pregnant, but she is noticeably unexcited by motherhood. We gradually learn that her upbringing has made her a rather cold, distant person who has trouble connecting with others. This sets the stage for what's to come, and what comes is lots of tension stemming from both the mysterious entities and the people forced to ride out the events together. The tension felt as Malorie and the boy and girl travel down the river gradually increases as they near their destination because we know that their destination matters. I had a strong emotional reaction to the plight of the boy and girl. I must admit that I started sobbing near the end... but I won't spoil it by saying why :-). Some people have complained that the film doesn't explain the origin of the mysterious entities which are the catalysts of the events, but I think their origin is beside the point (though, a possible explanation is alluded to by one character early on). To me, this is a movie about a woman learning to make the personal connections she had been unable to. The entities are not the point, *she* is the point. If you want horror à la Insidious (which was great!), this isn't for you. If you enjoy mystery for the sake of a broader, emotional point, this is definitely worth watching.
