This is one of the greatest artistic achievements of mankind, up there with Macbeth, Starry Starry Night, and Limp Bizkit's Significant Other. Future generations will look back at this film as a turning point in culture worldwide. It is on the bleeding edge of comedy and we need more, I never once thought I'd see a feature-length film bring together silent film, experimental film, the Looney Tunes, and all manner of physical gags into such a crescendo of wacky violence. Thank you so much for making this. I didn't think I would ever laugh like this again, and neither had my wife..
Incredible visual and auditory spectacle achieved at the loss of much of the nuance and complexity of the work, as well as many important character moments. This is the Cliffs Notes version of Dune, updated for The Modern Audience(TM). It’s as much a Tone Poem as it is a work of narrative fiction, in love with its sweeping long shots. The vastly truncated timeline, removal of many characters and factions, and complete changing of Chani’s character from a Reverend Mother-in training and loyal companion to a mouthpiece of the writers (telling, not showing!) are among the bigger missteps here. Stilted, unnatural dialogue where characters speak in modern vernacular or describe things that are well-known to their conversational partner took me out of multiple scenes. The script not only insults the audience’s intelligence, but it does a disservice to the rich world-building of the book while trying to “improve” it by simultaneously simplifying a complex universe and timeline as well as changing aspects of Fremen culture (the word “fundamentalist” is never used in the book). Where are the Guild Navigators? The LANDSRAAD? Why do the Emperor and the Princess Irulan have so little to do? What happened to Thufir Hawat? Or Jamis’ family? Why is Stilgar made into comic relief? Why was Leto II excised, and Alia so changed? Why change the ending to such a degree? The film is long and ponderous, but barely attempts to penetrate the depths of Herbert’s world and characters beyond simply “religion bad” and “nobility bad”. Yet it pretends at subtlety. It reaches for greatness it cannot even see, for it’s blinded by its own ambition. Ironic. As a result, I feel that Dune Part Two’s one-note approach taints it not just as an adaptation, but as a film. If you are not steeped in the lore, this is a perfectly serviceable, if flawed, epic, with poor pacing and a total lack of the soul, humanity, and nuance Herbert wove into Dune. Again, the truncated timeline makes it highly implausible to me that the events of the full story over both films take place over less than 9 months. Missing are large chunks of memorable dialogue that even made it to the ‘84 David Lynch adaptation. (“Father, the sleeper has awakened”, anyone?)After the promising first part of this saga, I’m left disappointed and cold. At times, I felt bored. I am in disbelief. Hopefully part 3 can redeem this mess.
The score and 3 lead performances were incredible and truly elevated a weak premise. Just about everything else was mid. The direction was plodding and aimless at times. The script was overly precious, cloying, and really struck me, someone whose family has also lived the Asian diaspora and left many beloved friends and family behind, as totally unrealistic. Imagine carrying the torch for 20 years for someone who clearly does not care about you the same way. It's a woman's power fantasy. The characters are lightly sketched and the viewer must fill in the blanks. Very weak script. I can't believe this was nominated for Best Picture AND Best Original Screenplay. What a joke.
Amazing fan service. Lovingly and carefully written interpretations of the characters. It is obvious Nintendo took great care in supervising Illumination and crafting a film that would appeal to fans and kids alike. Mario and Peach are selfless heroes with hearts of gold who strive determinedly for others, and their relationship forms the heart of the film. Bowser is equal parts threatening and hilarious. Luigi has an arc, though he could easily have been given more screen time. Toad, DK, and Kamek were all fine. Loved all of the easter eggs and the film’s fast pace will help it on repeat viewings. It’s a real crowd pleaser that had everyone clapping. I can’t wait to see it again.
Yeah, I'm seriously going to go there and give this a negative review, because Disney's android armies are here to bat for them. Now, normally the occasional plot hole or shoehorned story element that beggars belief does not bother me. But this movie is filled with absolutely bone-headed decisions by Parker (Holland does his best but at times seems confused - I blame constant rewrites as the writing is insufferable) and the plot? It's an amount of stupid that I just cannot handle. Just about the only highlights this film had to offer were the performance by Jake Gyllenhaal, and the fights, while heavily-reliant on CGI, are generally fun. I enjoyed the final fight scene and Zendaya's character is more interesting than in Homecoming. Even Ned is funny at times. But that doesn't excuse poor writing that presents a whiny character that scarce resembles the selfless Peter Parker, who was motivated by PROTECTING THOSE CLOSEST TO HIM!!! Absolutely none of the choices Peter Parker makes in this film is for the right reason, or for the noblest intent. Minor SPOILER here... Mysterio's trick on Peter could only have worked if he knew what an incredible bonehead this kid is. Biggest and most unexplained plot failure right there. And that scene where they tried to convince me that Peter understands the ramifications of Multiverse theory being real? **** all you did was copy out the textbook come the **** on. You obviously cannot write characters smarter than you are, so why didn't you bring in an expert to help you with that scene? Oh, I'll tell you why. It's ****ing laziness. My wife and Mom were just as exasperated as I was to see what Peter does in the bus. I walked out of the room right there because it was so poorly motivated, realized, or executed. This tottering fool of a director, Jon Watts, could have more judiciously chopped this movie down. Trim the bad jokes, tuck the padding, and improve the character choices... Here's another one for you. Why the ever-loving cuss, after seeing the projection, didn't Parker IMMEDIATELY call Nick Fury?!? That he simply doesn't want to be involved with him ENDANGERS EVERYONE and PUTS THE CITY OF LONDON AT RISK OF MASS CASUALTIES. IT BEGGARS CUSSING BELIEF. All you needed to fix this was one line of dialogue. Spider-Man: *receives a call from Nick Fury, answers*
Nick Fury: Line's compromised - I'll call you back. They wouldn't even need to drag Samuel L. Jackson out of bed. Have the guy send a voice recording from his phone. No one can tell the cussing difference anyway, because the sound mix is so sloppy! Also worst Giacchino score!! Come on dude! Fallin' asleep at the wheel here! Love, a fan. IN SHORT CUSS THIS MOVIE THE END Tacos/10
I am a huge fan of the first three films and this one, while a disappointment, still has more to offer and say than most braindead Hollywood blockbusters. As far as franchise reboots go, this wasn't bad. I enjoyed the meta-commentary for the most part, the script has some good ideas, and there are some really beautiful shots. It's definitely not perfect, but an attempt was made to continue the story and move the lore forward, and for that, I am grateful. IMO as far as soft reboots/sequels go, this is better than The Force Awakens.
Touching and thought-provoking, especially the first and last stories. An excellent cast evokes nostalgia for a time and place I've never been. The middle article, underutilizing the talents of Frances McDormand and featuring that insufferable kid from Dune, was rather weak, but overall this is another artistic home run for Wes Anderson, with lots of laughs and his strong writing in full force. While it never reaches the heights of "The Grand Budapest Hotel", it's the best movie I've seen since "Pig" and a more than worthy entry into his catalog. It's also the first time I've actually felt his artistic flourishes get in the way of his storytelling, as the constant changes in format, color, and even aspect ratio can be jarring from time to time - a minor complaint that I'm sure will be remedied on repeat viewings. I only wish Anderson would make more films, as the wait between his films has become painful.
I first off want to thank Steven Soderbergh for stepping in to get this movie made. This is really something special. An absurdist masterpiece 29 years in the making. They did it. They achieved the impossible. Bill & Ted Face the Music is not only a proper conclusion to this most heinous of sagas, but a singular and rare example **** Sequel That Doesn't Ruin Its Beloved Characters, which, as demonstrated here, shouldn't be such a high bar for Hollywood to hit. Reflect for a moment that in these days of milking franchises till they're dry, quality characters, quickly-paced plotting, and naturalistic performances are hard to come by, doubly so in the under-explored sub-genre of absurdist sci-fi buddy comedy sequels released 29 years later. It's even rarer for said well-written, well-acted, absurdist sci-fi comedy sequels to have a heart and soul, and this one has two beating hearts named Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter, who embody their iconic roles perfectly. (Its soul resides in themes uncovered by the daughters' journey, which I'll get to later.) I was practically cringing at this film's trailer, which somehow didn't sell me on its aging leads' ability to embody and recapture the wide-eyed, innocently boyish, lovable heroes they perfected in 1989 and reprised in 1991. Thankfully, the trailer doesn't spoil the movie's best moments, nor does it give away too much of the plot, a miracle in this day and age. It's also miraculous that the film manages to weave in the existential crises inherent with over two decades' worth of unfulfilled potential and unrealized dreams without ever being morose, downbeat, or cynical, and without losing sight of Bill and Ted. For all of 2020's crises, there is hope inherent in the fact that Bill and Ted never once gave up trying to write the song. They spent 25 (in-film) years, most marked by failure, and in their first scene, which is goofy, transcendent, tragic, and sweet all at once, they demonstrate that they've explored the boundaries of music with an outrageous theremin-throat singing-bagpipe performance that's several hundred years ahead of its time. (Yes, the film retcons some aspects of Bogus Journey's epilogue in a clarifying introduction.) There are jokes to be had at our protagonists' expense, but to their credit, original co-creators and writers Ed Solomon and Chris Matheson and veteran director Dean Parisot (Galaxy Quest) display that most important trait of sci-fi storytellers: the ability to say "what if?" and go ham for 92 minutes of balanced crests and troughs that keep the plot moving at a quick clip. I didn't get to see any of the behind-the-scenes stuff, but I'm sure the filmmakers enlisted Winter's and Reeves' help to explore a number of different versions of the iconic characters in a delightful series of encounters. There isn't a single scene in this film where Winter and Reeves don't seem to be having the time of their lives revisiting these characters. It's worth watching for that, and their chemistry, alone. There's some sort of righteous alchemy here between the pair. Bill & Ted, and their affable, smart, and understandably music-obsessed offspring, go on very different journeys in this film. As I said, if Bill and Ted are the film's beating heart, ever resilient and hopeful through years of disappointments, Thea and Billie's journey provides the film with its soul. Here, the theme of music as the great bridge between people is explored, through aural delights and cinematic scenes to wonderful to be spoiled with mere words. Jamming, call-and-response, teaching, rivalries, announcements, propositions, a wordless cry of raw expression and emotion - if you have deep feelings about music and its place in the history of the human experience, you might just be touched by this constant theme, which is interwoven with a story that, stripped of its sci-fi trappings, could be taken straight out of a blues song. The storytelling branches out and keeps on pulling at new, surprising, and silly threads until it reaches its delightful and totally earned climax, an ending so stirring that it left Kevin Smith in tears. This film hits differently to people who grew up on the originals, and it hits especially well if you've just seen those films back to back, like my wife and I did. In almost every way (I lamented the recasting of the wives!), Bill & Ted Face the Music fits in 100% with the first two Bill & Ted films, redeems any missteps in Bogus Journey, tickles the funny bone, and boldly goes for the heart. I'm overjoyed just typing out those words. Step aside, Star Wars. Make way, Lord of the Rings. Indiana Jones, take a hike. Bill & Ted is now an epic film trilogy, one I find easy to recommend wholeheartedly to almost anyone. I will love and treasure Bill & Ted Face the Music as long as I live. Thank you to all involved for making this passion project a reality.
You know what's more insulting than an actress and actor insulting their primary viewing audience? A film that doesn't respect that audience's intelligence, with a wildly incoherent narrative spun via a bland script, uninspired and overly edited action scenes, a wildly incoherent and poorly portrayed protagonist whose plank-like expression inspires no pathos whatsoever, and a jumble of mixed lore that not only clashes with what we already know of the MCU and reeks of retconning, with a sort of "oops, we forgot to introduce this character earlier, but they're super important and great at everything and somehow missing during the last 20-odd movies, so here they are, I guess?!" vibe to the whole charade. Mendelsohn and Law are the only ones who get out of this scot-free. There's something approaching the uncanny valley with how Samuel L. Jackson has been de-aged. I'm not exactly jazzed thinking about how much of the film's budget went into that effect, when they could have spent it actually trying with the weak action scenes. I mean, hello?! Infinity War and Black Panther both made over a billion dollars! They had time to do reshoots and rewrites, surely! There's no excuse for poor action, weak acting, or lazy storytelling in a major Marvel movie going forward. I'll be honest - the moment I saw that they were using the late Stan Lee's (RIP) Twitter account to promote this film was the moment I turned against this film. I felt disgusted for giving these corporate hacks my money and cheated that the man-hating Larson's character will be the new face of the MCU going forward. Whatever happened to all the characters we invested so much time and love in? Whatever happened to treating your fans with respect? I'm going to see Endgame for sure, but after that, I don't know anymore... I'm getting burned out on these cookie-cutter films.
"Isle of Dogs" is another artistically successful Wes Anderson production. It's a bit darker and more dramatic than I expected, but no less entertaining, and it's got standout moments of beauty and charm that will stick with me. It's also a fantastic showcase for the stunning medium of stop-motion animation. Bryan Cranston nails the key vocal performance as Chief, the stray dog who sticks out of the pack of alphas that hold sway over Trash Island. The other dogs have highlights and flesh out the world, but Cranston, who is at war with himself, is radiant, and almost singlehandedly sells the whole picture. Even though the premise of "Isle of Dogs" is so absurd, the story is rich in character moments and symbolism, and is structured like an epic. The point-of-view is more often than not from the dogs' eyes and ears, with much of the Japanese being untranslated, an interesting artistic choice that may come off as inspired to some and cloying to others, especially since the human element plays a rather large part in the plot. While Anderson has plenty of fun here with dog jokes and puns, he also manages to devote time to examining the age-old give-take relationship between humans and dogs, social and environmental issues, the increasing detritus and forgotten sins of the modern age (the price we pay for "progress"), the influence of media and the elite, and the pursuit of the higher self, all in the span of an hour and forty minutes. As Anderson yanks on heartstrings with close-ups of tear-filled human and dog eyes and emotionally rich scenes of great inter-species bonding and tribulation, he also pays homage to the old Japanese masters - Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, and Ozu are all referenced with gorgeous mise-en-scene, character and set design, story choices, and complex framing and tracking shots. Pay no heed to the "professional" critics crying "cultural appropriation". They are going out of their way to find fault here. I see nothing offensive in this intricate portrayal of a fictional, alternate-universe Japanese city in all of its beauty and complexity. This is a story that transcends cultural and linguistic boundaries and appeals to all dog lovers, even as it slyly comments on the elaborate fictions that we humans love to craft and live by. I'm really not sure how it will play to kids, though. Although "Isle of Dogs" wasn't the manic comedy I was expecting, and there are definitely pacing issues and missed opportunities, it really spoke to me in a way few films do these days, and in a manner and style that closely evokes Japanese cinema from the bygone eras of the 50s and 60s as much as it does the rest of Anderson's often-stellar oeuvre. I'm definitely seeing this one again.
An utter character assassination on Luke Skywalker. It was like that episode of South Park with Spielberg and Lucas doing unspeakable things to Indiana Jones, but worse. This went on for two and a half snooze-inducing hours. Boring and inconsequential subplots that have no relation to the main conflict. Extensive cross-cutting. Cheap humor at the expense of the lore. Rey's journey is bland as a shaved potato. Waste. Hubris. Idiocy. No answers or respect for the past films. No understanding of mythology. Tone-deaf dialogue and boring direction. Lazy cinematography and choreography. This is the worst Star Wars film and I am done with Disney Star Wars. It's no longer canon to me and this is the last time I'm paying to them in theaters. Give me 200 million dollars and I would have made a far better movie than this piece of trash. The Porgs were cute, though. Oh and check out my essay on Medium called "The Last Jedi: On the Character Assassination of Luke Skywalker" (I can't link it here, they'll delete my review again).
I'd actually rate it a 7 but I want to counter-balance all the hate. This film is not worthy of being trashed so badly. It knows what it is and it delivers on that promise entirely. It's a film about robots that turn into cars and planes bashing each other. What more do you want? If the premise of King Arthur's victory being due to a giant three-headed alien transformer dragon raining fireballs upon a medieval battlefield does nothing for you, then you aren't this film's target audience. Sorry, goodbye. Go watch something with more of a pedigree. The one thing I would have changed in this film would have been to have more/bigger/better one-on-one duels in the third act (other than the Optimus/Bumblebee fight, there aren't any drawn-out epic one-on-ones to compare to the climaxes of TF2 and TF3). The big climactic scene is really well-done otherwise, and the humans get a chance to shine in the battle as well, but it still feels like something's missing in the payoff. Other than that, this is definitely not that bad of a film. The budget really shows and the technical aspects really shine (visual effects, sound design and editing, etc). Sir Anthony Hopkins really dives into his performance in a way that classes the whole thing up, and his Transformer butler provides a really fun comic foil. The cast in general was pretty solid, and even if the writing wasn't always up to the challenge of providing them with fun things to say, it's definitely a step up from "Age of Extinction". The story in general is quite fascinating in how far it goes for broke and, much like previous films in the franchise, there's plenty of ridiculous references to aliens molding/shaping human history, conspiracy theories, secret societies, Stonehenge being the center of a portal, etc. I enjoyed all of this stuff, though, maybe because I'm okay with occasionally turning my brain off to enjoy what I can out of a stupid movie that knows it's stupid and only wants to unabashedly entertain and dazzle with audio/visual magic. Also, there's apparently a scene after the credits that I missed that is really weird/silly.
This film was entertaining but ultimately adds up to less than the sum of its parts. The Good: The insane (amount and quality of) action, cinematography, and some performances. Felicity Jones and Ben Mendohlson did a lot with weak material and were seriously great. Alan Tudyk, Donnie Yen and Diego Luna's characters are cool. Certain cameos work really well. There's some poetry and clever visual ideas in the prolonged conflict in the third act, which almost makes up for the terrible first 1/2 of the movie (Jyn dispatches Stormtroopers with a stick... OK...). The action kind of feels like a kid playing with Star Wars action figures, in both good and bad ways. Oh and there's a monkey Rebel gunner. The Bad: Everything else. The script tries to be darker and more realistic but there's hardly any depths of conflict beyond "good guys" VS "bad guys" where one good guy is only slightly more morally compromised than the others. There's no character development whatsoever. The story overall is paint-by-the-numbers. A total missed opportunity there. Forest Whitaker's character dies early on for no reason. The score is weak. There is little dramatic drive because we all know how this story will end. Too much "fan-service" and nostalgia. Callbacks to the original trilogy can only go so far. The Ugly: How much money this is going to make, undeservedly. Unless you REALLY need to see the epic finale on the big screen, just wait for it to hit home video.
This is in my top 3 of the year so far. A truly beautiful film that strikes just the right tone and features some strong performances from Streep and Grant (who gives his first real performance in a LONG time). Simon Helberg also does very good work as Cosme Mcmoon. Florence is truly a lovable character whom you just can't dislike. I felt this film was very warm-hearted in that even though it's extremely funny, it treats the title character with respect and portrays her life and relationships with complexity and realism. The dichotomy between the "scoffers and mockers" and the pure naive heart of Streep's Jenkins, who loves to sing for the pure joy of performing (no matter how terrible she is) and is a true patron of the arts brings up some interesting questions about art and happiness (and which one is more important), about the subjective quality of music, the way love takes different forms, and about the bubbles that many people end up living within, perhaps without noticing it. I left this one with a warm and happy feeling in my heart. This film is a classic, IMO. You don't need to be a lover of art or music to appreciate it but if you are you'll likely love it on a very deep level. The ending was also very strong.
Yeah, it's bad. But there's some charisma in there between the 4 leading ladies. Leslie Jones' Patty was surprisingly the most human-seeming of the group. Kate McKinnon is entertaining as well. Chris Hemsworth is also fun in his "dumb blonde" schtick but the script is just NOT there. I don't know if it's a case of too much improv, not enough writing, or a sheer lack of foresight but this movie just isn't very funny. That would be fine if it weren't trying SO HARD to be funny but falling flat much more often than getting laughs. It's like Paul Feig forgot how to make comedies or something. Even putting aside the "Ghostbusters" license, this simply isn't a very good movie. The third act turns into an action and CGI-fest, which wouldn't be so terrible if everything that proceeded it wasn't bland and seemingly aimless. The only character who has any semblance of an arc is Kristen Wiig's. Attempts at fan-service such as including familiar ghosts come too little, too late, as do the celebrity cameos. The whole thing is uninspired. I wish I could say I was very disappointed but pretty much from the first trailer we knew what we were in for. Sorry, Sony. Try again on the "reboot-a-franchise-roulette".
Ah! Director Justin Lin and writer Simon Pegg breathe new life into the reboot series that JJ Abrams and Bob Orci nearly killed in the water. What an improvement over the plot-hole ridden, willfully stupid "Into Darkness"! This is the first film of the "Star Trek" reboot that really seems like it gives two craps about the traditions of the franchise instead of rehashing them to pander to the audience, and it also happens to have a decent and not overly complex story, a ton of action, very good interplay between the iconic characters, and the old-fashioned pulpy adventure feel of the original series. Unlike the ponderous rehash-riddled plot of "Into Darkness" or the over-the-top retconned AU fanfic origin story of the 2009 "Trek", this one drops the audience into a self-contained story right in the middle of the five-year mission and is all the better for it. Characters like Bones and Spock feel like they already have history, and the writing for them is especially on point, something that can't be said about "Into Darkness". The action was silly and fun. The villain was interesting. The alien tech on display is also quite awesome. It truly seems like everyone was having a good time making this and I felt it was very entertaining. Even though at times the plot was predictable, no one thing took me out of the film and the performances alone were totally transporting. I can't say enough about how much more I enjoyed this than the ridiculous first two films in this reboot series. It really feels like this reboot has finally found its groove and I hope they keep it up for the recently-announced fourth film.
I'm puzzled at all the love for this because I was extremely disappointed. The story, script, characterizations, everything was just slipshod and lacking in the quality we all expect from Pixar. That it was directed by Andrew Stanton makes no sense to me, because normally his films have a polished look and feel to them, and with the exception of maybe one or two revelatory moments, that is simply not the case here. This is his weakest cinematic effort thus far, and I blame Pixar's storyboard-by-committee approach 100%. Whereas one of Finding Nemo's strengths was in its realism (remember how tough it was for those fish to find a way out of that fish tank??), in this film the characters become involved in ridiculous set-pieces where the audience is asked to suspend a HUGE amount of disbelief in order to accept what's happening on-screen. Without spoiling anything I will say that there were far too many scenes where I was asked to turn my brain off, or was straight-up reminded that I was watching a kids' movie that can pick and choose whenever it wants to be taken seriously, rather than something that actually makes an effort at immersing the audience, or at least attempting to immerse the audience, in a semi-believable universe. Also, the writing is weak. The story takes some very predictable turns towards the end, the dialogue is nothing special, and very few characters from the original film return. Marlin and Nemo have hardly anything to do and the film IMO places way too much emphasis on Dory, with maybe one too many unneeded flashbacks, and going so far as to spend far too much screen time milking the character's journey for emotion. Of course it's going to be a tough emotional journey getting one's memories back, but that doesn't mean the writing and plot have to progress at such a slow pace. Also, Ellen DeGeneres gives her heart and soul into the performance, but Dory as written is really not all that compelling. There was clearly a missed opportunity here for real character development. The single best part of the movie is Hank the octopus, hands-down. He's not only the coolest character in both these films, he's one of the more memorable Pixar characters in the last decade. Sadly, the film is not about Hank and he is only a supporting character. The sea lions were great as well. "Gerald!" I woke up the next day wondering what went wrong, and why this film seems to be so critic-proof when there are so many issues with it. Sure, there are some decent emotional scenes and two or three laugh-out-loud moments (including one gag that nearly had me rolling on the floor), but for the most part this film is boring, sloppy, predictable, and utterly lacking in the wonder, world-building, and emotion of the original, much superior Finding Nemo. O Pixar, how the mighty have fallen...
How this film got such a low critic score is beyond me, but then again these days critics are so jaded and conditioned by certain types of films that they can't even begin to think about embracing something out of their comfort zones. I have never played WoW and my limited experience with Warcraft 2 and 3 aren't much to go by (not to mention I'm hardly even a Blizzard fan after I found Diablo III disappointing), so I didn't have much invested in this movie or universe, but rather went in with an open mind, ready for an interesting story to unfold, and I wasn't at all let down - you might even say I was shockingly surprised at the quality of this film. Warcraft is something new, something spectacular, and most importantly, something that uses the tropes of high fantasy to full effect, with insanely powerful magic spells, giant mounts, brutal action sequences (cleverly filmed so as to garner the PG-13 rating), and compelling storylines, bolstered by some of the best motion-capture work this side of the Planet of the Apes films. The visual effects are stunning and the pace rarely ever lets up as the viewer is whisked away to and from the many locales of Azeroth. The fight scenes are well-shot and the magic in particular stands out as being especially well-realized. For those seeking eye candy, the attention to detail in the visual effects, characters, armor, sets, and weapons is nothing short of magical. Weta Workshop's work on the armor and practical effects deserves every commendation it can get. The worst thing I can say about this film is that it definitely feels like it was trimmed way down by the studio. Allegedly, 40 minutes were left on the cutting room floor, and I get the feeling they would have gone a long way towards fixing the rushed nature and lightning-fast subplots that marred the film's second act. I'll gladly watch a director's cut with the restored footage. If I had one other major complaint to lodge, it's that the performances are somewhat uneven, and on whose shoulders the blame rests will vary from viewer to viewer (Khadgar and King Wrynn could have been better cast, IMO). If you're at all interested in high fantasy, even if you have no prior experience in Azeroth, I highly recommend this film. You'll likely find much more to love than to hate.
I really have to say, this one was a mixed bag for me. I felt like they had set up Apocalypse well enough, when it came time for the payoff, the film sort of dropped the ball and he became like any other generic villain. I expected more from him, to be honest. That said, I appreciate how seriously the movie took itself, and they found a good balance between action, humor, dread, and character moments. I think I liked it more than Days of Future Past (which did right by the characters but had way too many plot holes). It also ties together the two timelines pretty well, but on the whole, the plot was rushed and kind of all over the place. Another issue with Apocalypse: his powers are not carefully defined by the film, so while he appears insanely powerful at first, you're not sure just how much he can handle, or what he's capable of when pushed his limits. Also, his motivation comes off as quite generic and even uninspired for someone with such grand designs. I felt like they didn't do the character justice. The other new mutants introduced are a treat though. Olivia Munn's Psylocke is bad ass, though I wish there were more of her before the last act of the film. The only one who was so-so for me was Angel. This film has a lot of good ideas and memorable scenes, but because they have to juggle so many characters with their own backstories, motivations, etc., the level of dramatic shorthand used (cough Auschwitz cough) kind of keeps the film's beats predictable and holds it back from the greatness it wants so desperately to achieve. Fassbender as Magneto and McAvoy as Xavier are just spot on as always however, no complaints there. Sophie Turner pulls off a pretty good American accent and does justice to the character of Jean Grey, and the dude who plays Cyclops also does a bang-up job. It's amazing seeing Jackman return as Wolverine, even if it's just briefly. The only character who I could have used less of was Mystique - it feels like her role was beefed up due to Jennifer Lawrence being more prominent in Hollywood. Sadly, her character arc is extremely boring and she looks like she's about to fall asleep in every scene she's in. Another complaint I have is that it's hard to imagine the first X-Men movie taking place AFTER this one, since the stakes are raised so highly and so much has happened by the time the world is "saved" at the end of the day here. I can't imagine what the body count must have been. Anyway, it's a pretty good movie. I went in with low expectations and I feel like I got more than what I paid for. I just don't know how rewatchable this is because gosh does that second act drag on. Maybe they should put Matthew Vaughn back in the director's chair next time, though.
This movie really surprised me, especially because I didn't really like the first one. Visually this movie is a real treat. I enjoyed the lighthearted performances, especially Mia Wasikowska as the plucky Alice, and of course I fell hard for the visual effects, Dan Hennah's production design, and Colleen Atwood's costume designs. Sadly, all the world-building that was set up in the first film took forever to manifest into a sequel, and so when we get answers to certain questions posed by the first film as well as the Caroll lore, they don't feel revelatory so much as just "oh, so that's why such-and-such". Still, I think the wait was worth it. This time around, it actually feels like there's a heart beating at the center of all the eye candy. Last time, the story was so straightforward and predictable the visuals were the only thing holding the film together. Now, the themes are more clearly presented and Alice's adventure in Underland is more of an inner journey. Underneath all the shiny gloss, this movie actually has strong personal growth messages and deals with difficult topics such as loss and acceptance. As someone who has lost someone precious recently, at the end of the film I came out feeling inspired. The filmmakers tap into both the darkness and the lightheartedness of Carroll's world in broad strokes, even if they don't really get or even attempt to do justice to the deeper social allegories. Linda Woolverton's script is more blunt and brute force than it is subversive, but the film's feminist touches are thankfully not as ham-fisted as they were in the first film. Wasikowska is wonderful, Depp is... well, Depp, Hathaway is pleasingly fairy-like and subdued, and Carter continues to chew scenery. But the real MVP here is Sasha Baron Cohen, whose portrayal of Time is an obvious highlight. Little bits and pieces of Carrollian lore are much appreciated. Humpty Dumpty as well as the large talking chess pieces make a brief appearance, and the fish and frog people are more prominent. Some of Carroll's trademark words and phrases appear especially early on, but the world-building doesn't get too in-depth beyond that. We see the origin of the rivalry between the White Queen and the Red Queen, as well as the reason why it's always one minute to teatime at the Mad Hatter's table when Alice first arrives in Underland. I can see why this film might not cast its spell on everyone because it's so fast-paced and often feels like a movie for kids rather than for those well-versed in this universe. But if you're on the fence, you may end up liking or even loving it! There's more to the story and themes than what's just on the surface. I wasn't at all disappointed and will watch this again in the future.
A fitting if artless end to the Hunger Games series, with the exception of a bunch of added scenes this is pretty accurate to the book, but the amount of padding both here and in Mockingjay Pt. 1 really dilutes the experience, ruins the overall pacing, and creates an oppressive atmosphere without adding much to the thematic content. Nothing in the film is quite as believable as it should be, and scenes that should hit hard don't have too much impact, or they have their impact delayed. For instance, the much-hyped sewer sequence features the only decent action in the film and is admittedly freaky and tense, but the way it concludes seems tossed together and I didn't really believe it. There's a scene at the gate of Snow's mansion that is pretty sloppy. The writing was fine and much of it was true to the book but they did not go far enough into ideologies IMO. Given that they were going to add a bunch of stuff anyway, I wanted discussions on the immorality of war, on whether or not the rebels should even continue to have districts, and whether or not there should even be a central government anymore after the war. The performances are fine as always, though the movie still lingers far too much on Lawrence's Katniss, who's intense and determined and finally trying a little tenderness, but doesn't have that much to do, nor does she have a complete arc in this film that results in a change in her character. The film wants to get into her head space, but she still seems like a bit of a stranger. IMO the film does not really capture the inner turmoil she went through in the book, especially during the last act of the story, where it seemed like she was totally losing her mind. She does have a big breakdown that is well-acted but for the rest of the film she plays it pretty one-note. Philip Seymour Hoffman's death is also felt in the last act, but at least it gives Haymitch something more to do. Elizabeth Banks has one scene where she bids goodbye to Katniss and steals the show. Aside from the brooding Gale and Peeta and Coin and Snow (the two best supporting performances in this film - I wanted more of Donald Sutherland's scenery-chewing), the rest of the cast don't do much because the director is so focused on Katniss' brooding self. It's whatever and by the end of it I was actually legitimately bored. That should NOT happen. I read all of these books in a weekend because I was so addicted to them. But the movie just drags on and on with inconsequential scene after scene that does little to advance the story, characters, or themes beyond what has already been established. Given the source material, I thought this could be the strongest of the films, but in fact, it might be the worst. A lot of its impact is flat-out diluted due to sloppy directing and editing choices. For fans of the franchise, it's still worth watching and it does provide a subversive and fitting conclusion for this series. I just wish it were more artfully done and made with more confidence.
Visually, it's a treat. Storytelling-wise, it doesn't live up to the hype. The problem with this film is that it's trying to be both a "message" movie and a film noir detective mystery type deal. But the fact that it's so strongly a "message" movie robs the detective element of all its suspense. The two main characters are likable but nobody else really registers. This is a SJW movie about discrimination, racism, tolerance, etc., but the dialogue is dry and the humor is still very basic - it's stereotypical and often animal-based (sloths are slow, cops eat donuts, rabbits breed immensely fast [a joke they milk repeatedly], etc). There are only two vaguely funny scenes, and one was spoiled in an early trailer and wears out its welcome as you're watching it. I really don't see why there's so much love and hype for this. Sure the art and animation are great, but the characters are nothing special, plus the story was predictable and followed the beats of any other police movie. There isn't much that I really enjoyed. The world-building hardly even makes sense. Who decided to build this big city with ridiculously different climates rather than just building multiple cities? What does the metropolis produce for the rest of the world? What do the predators eat if not the herbivores/omnivores? Why do the little critters have their mini-city of Little Rodentia in THE MIDDLE of this vast metropolis? If this is a kids' movie, why are there dark scenes where a mafioso modeled after Don Corleone (very original, guys) threatens characters with torture and death (and the second time around he has the approval of the main characters, who are standing around with grins on their faces)? Also there's that yawn-inducing procedural trope where a character is about to reveal EVERYTHING but succumbs to a fit of violence, only to artificially increase the level of intrigue at play. When the answer to the "night terrors" question presents itself it's out of nowhere and should have been something these smartphone-using animals could have looked up in 2 seconds. There's a lot of hare-brained storytelling decisions made here. Not to mention much of the movie drags on with a seemingly endless amount of familiar empowerment tropes. The only thing that saves the film from completely collapsing under the weight of its cheerless social justice mission is the way Judy and Nick are written and the banter they share. Honestly... just because this makes some people and movie critics feel better about themselves doesn't change the fact that it's just an OK Disney movie. If it changed your life, good for you. But don't pretend it's some kind of masterpiece.
I don't see why there's so much hate for this movie. It was clearly meant to be little more than a green-screen action spectacle, but this one leans heavily on its mythological elements, which some will enjoy more than others. The action ranges from so-so (obviously green-screen pyramid fight scene) to cool (magical babes riding giant flame-throwing cobras) to incredible (anything with Ra and the hell monster). I'm guessing that a lot of the negativity is a result of the writing. It's true, the dialogue is lacking and there are several cheesy lines, but the benefit of the fast-paced script is that it conveys the solid world-building clearly. The story moves at a good pace, and the characters are likable and act in ways that make sense. None of the main characters do anything stupid, and the villain doesn't make dumb decisions. So that's already an improvement over most films of this genre. I want to believe in this world and I would like to see sequels with these characters but unfortunately due to this film having an estimated disappointing performance, that doesn't seem to be likely. The only things worth complaining about are a lack of a memorable script and the very green-screen look, which is a result of everything being shot and lit a little too perfectly and being comped into backgrounds that can resemble a very well-rendered PS4 game. I am a big fan of director Alex Proyas' "The Crow" and "Dark City". This is not his best work but I definitely think it's being overly thrashed. If you enjoyed "Prince of Persia" and "Clash of the Titans", you'll probably enjoy this, too.
Actually a 7 movie but I rated it 9 because there is waaaay too much hate for it. There are some dumb gags and it runs a bit long, sure, but most of the movie is a total riot. I didn't find it offensive, really, and anyone who does needs to chill out and find something else to be upset about. The chemistry between De Niro and Efron and De Niro and Plaza is amazing and the writing is hilarious. Give it a chance!
Beautiful. Gritty. Brutal. Gripping. I couldn't take my eyes off this movie. All the hellish conditions undergone by the cast and crew while shooting in sequential order and using only natural lighting really paid off with one of the most harrowing cinematic experiences ever (as far as I'm concerned). Though some of the wide-angle shots remind you that you're watching a film, the emphasis on realism is absolutely transporting. Some of the best action scenes are shot entirely with one take as well which adds to their immediacy. The performances by DiCaprio and Hardy are top-notch and both truly disappear into their roles. Can't recommend this enough. Lubezki's cinematography... it must have been such hell getting some of those shots. This is Inarritu's best work by far, beating out the gimmicky "Birdman" and the visionary but depressing "Babel". A true gem of cinema and easily among the top 3 films of 2015. Go see it in the best theater possible!!
This movie is hard to watch at times but by God, is it brilliant. What makes it so are the tiny glimpses of humanity in between Swanson's total disregard, apathy, and childish recklessness. The style of directing and acting complement one another so well and atmosphere and tone are just perfectly set. Anyone who has lived in either NYC or Los Angeles probably knows someone like Tim Heidecker's character, or at least one of his friends. I wanted so badly for whatever is good in this man to come bursting forth, even though you know it isn't going to happen because there isn't an ounce of authenticity in him... or is there? This character is a total enigma. I had no idea Heidecker was capable of this kind of nuanced performance. What a misunderstood treasure this film is.
OK, what the **** have the critics been smoking? They must really have it in for George Lucas because this is to me the best American animated film of 2015 (and this year gave us Inside Out). I'm a guy and not even that big of a fan of musicals and I thought this film was beautiful, charming, uplifting, and funny (Bog's mom has some fantastic one-liners), with a good message to boot. It's an animated version of Moulin Rouge, and the way the characters go from talking to singing and back again is seamless and perfect. The characters' actions seem realistic and believable in this world and I loved how the filmmakers played with a sense of scale, where even a flower is a huge in their world. Again, I'm a straight adult male and I don't normally care about fairies but this film made full use of the concept. This is sure to be remembered as a cult classic down the line. One of my favorite childhood films was Beauty and the Beast and I can compare this favorably to that. If I ever have a daughter, this will be one of the films I show them.
"Anomalisa" is a seriously beautiful experience and a hell of a thought-provoking meditation on human loneliness and longing. It's an examination of what makes us so damaged and hurt and frail and yet capable of both love and fear in equal measure. If you look at just the bare bones plot of this story or get too caught up in judging the narcissistic protagonist, you're missing the point. Here the devil is in the meticulous details and specificity of the emotional journey our protagonist is on. The movie's thesis really manifests in the third act which hits really hard. This isn't your typical love story. It's a story about existential crises and the paradoxical nature of love in our twisted modern age. We are all both Michael and Lisa whether we know it or not. We all just want to love and be loved. But that happiness is so hard to find in a world where, as the customer service mantra-speech Michael is set to deliver proves, people need to be reminded constantly that every person is an individual and that every individual has needs. As might be expected from legendary scribe Charlie Kaufman, it's heavy, darkly funny, and existential as hell, but anyone expecting something as epic, layered with subtext, and intricate as his magnum opus "Synecdoche, New York" should be forewarned that this is almost the opposite of that film. It's very specific and intimate, almost disturbingly so, uncannily insightful in the subject of loneliness, and precise in handling its subject matter. For that reason, it may also hit harder and closer to home for most people than the labyrinthine, grandiose meta-fiction of "Synecdoche" (which is one of my all-time favorite films, like seriously top 3 material). In some ways this film is even more painstaking than "Synecdoche" because it recreates our boring old world down to the minutest detail in stop-motion animation. I also love all the questions Mr. Kaufman posits (can we really love someone if we don't love ourselves? what is the relationship between love and attachment? where does the individual end? why do we hurt so badly and continue to hurt others if we know how badly it feels? how do we justify our selfish actions? is this really what love has become in our corporatized world?). "Anomalisa" is not going to please everyone and in fact it may make a lot of people uncomfortable, but ****, I loved the ever-loving hell out of its awkward, anomalous brilliance. I'm really gonna have to see this one again.
"The Big Short" ruled. McKay's foray into more serious films (though this one is really funny, it knows when to make us laugh and when to get down to business) is a rousing success. This might be my movie of the year if "Mad Max" and "Ex Machina" hadn't already come out. It's smart, hilarious, entertaining, and informative. Like "The Wolf of Wall Street", it breaks the fourth wall in all the right places and the energy and tension never let up. The performances don't really stand out as much as the film's script and actual true-to-life content but Carrell turns in some surprising work and the cast is solid all across the board. The only thing I felt was missing was any nod at all to the big brokers/investors like Peter Schiff, Marc Faber, and Jim Rogers, who went on TV (some as early as 2006) accurately predicting the crisis, and also made serious bank off of it. I understand this is not their movie but would have appreciated even just a small acknowledgment that, yes, SOME very smart financial people saw this coming and were able to get on TV to warn us... only nobody listened because each network had talking heads to counter-point them (seriously, just look those dudes up on YouTube). Super-highly recommended.
It's not the best or most original in the series, nor is the plot airtight, but the film is exciting, humorous, well made, and at least as good as it needed to be. Harrison Ford really brought it and the new cast is excellent. The X-Wing sequences and saber action were legit. The film moves at a quick pace and it's easy to follow, although some bits make less sense than others. The art direction, character designs, sets, and sound design all harken back to the original trilogy. Fans' mileage may vary with the new characters, but I loved all of them, Rey and Finn especially. Ridley and Boyega really shine here. I just wish we knew more about these characters. We barely spend time with Oscar Issac's Poe Dameron, for instance. Sure, this movie isn't perfect. The filmmakers make a lot of odd decisions and old friends Han, Leia, and Luke aren't where we thought they would be in 30 years. It also recycles "Episode IV" to a great extent, even blatantly ripping off entire plot points, single shots, and individual sequences. The core story isn't strong, either, with coincidences and unexplainable occurrences flying out all over the place. However, the film does have a few saving graces, particularly in the performances and dialogue/banter. I'm very glad I went in with tempered expectations - in tossing the Expanded Universe out the window and remixing classic elements while barely adding to the existing mythology, in many ways "Episode VII" is as much a quality work of reverential and referential fan fiction as it is a continuation of the "Star Wars" saga. Sure, this hero's journey is more diverse and technically polished, but a strong sense of deja vu permeates this production via familiar plot points, mise-en-scene, designs, set pieces, editing and even John Williams' score. For many, that nostalgia will be a comfort, but I'm torn on the sheer amount of it, especially in the latter half of the film. It will take a second viewing for me to decide whether this film's overuse of "Star Wars" iconography is earned or not, but I can forgive them playing it safe and erring on the side of excess fan service simply because this is the first "Star Wars" film in a decade and they're just settling into the rhythm of things. As far as I'm concerned, there are the six "original" films and the Expanded Universe, and this and any further books, shows, and movies constitute a whole new canon, which I'm calling the "Disney canon". I remain curious as to what Lucas' version of Episodes VII-XII would have been and hope he publishes his ideas some day. Kasdan's script has the action and humor down, but it remains to be seen whether Disney has any idea how to deal with the more mythic and mystical aspects of the franchise, such as the Force. They need a writer who understands Eastern philosophy on a deep level. That said, they're off to a rollicking and energetic start here and I am so glad they were able to get the original cast members to reprise their roles. I'm curious to see where Gareth Edwards' "Rogue One" and Rian Johnson's "Episode VIII" take the series. Thanks for reading my thoughts. May the Force be with you all!!
I don't really get the hate for this one. It's nowhere near the level of "Jack and Jill" or that "That's My Boy" and closer in quality to "You Don't Mess With the Zohan", if not quite "Happy Gilmore" level. I thought this was well-shot, decently acted, harmless fun for the most part, and unlike most recent Adam Sandler films, this one actually had something resembling a story, plus his performance as a knife-wielding purveyor of mystical **** is actually kind of badass. The script isn't written by Shakespeare, but it's serviceable and let's be real, we're talking about Sandler here. I was actually pleasantly surprised by the cohesiveness of the story. As one might expect from a Happy Madison production, not all of the jokes hit their targets, but that doesn't mean there aren't some memorable sequences. It was great seeing Harvey Keitel onscreen again. Terry Crews pulls off every reaction shot perfectly, proving his comedy chops, and Taylor Lautner goes all out in portraying the dumb brother with a heart of gold. Rob Schneider has some fun moments, too, though Luke Wilson and Jorge Garcia are somewhat under-utilized. John Turturro's sequence as Abner Doubleday is a standout that points out how the rules of baseball seem totally arbitrary. But it's Vanilla Ice as Mark Twain that steals the show IMO. I would normally give this film a 7 but I'm giving it an 8 to counter-balance all the negative reviews. Seriously, did the people who hated this really find nothing enjoyable at all? The gorgeous cinematography and decent soundtrack? The respectful treatment of the Apache? I'm not a fan of most of Sandler's filmography, but this was not a bad or unwatchable movie by any metrics. In fact I'd say it's something of a return to form for him.
Disappointing. Craig is a great Bond but this script really felt tossed-together. I like the throwback quality to this film but attempts to ape some of Bond's better moments without properly motivating them fall flat. Waltz, Bellucci, and Bautista are all somewhat wasted. The two good action scenes are the opening sequence with the chopper and a bout with Bautista's character on the train. The car chase could and should have been done better. This film's high budget shows but it is lacking in the artistry fans expected, especially considering the good work Mendes did on Skyfall. Here the editing and cinematography are often at odds and the script is riddled with plot holes and inconceivable happenings. This film could have been so much better, but it simply lacks the layer of polish the other Craig Bond films had. Here's hoping Craig gets one more go as Bond as this was not a proper send-off.
I have no idea how this will play for someone who isn't already a fan of the "Terminator" franchise, but I enjoyed it quite a bit. Crazy action, Arnold mugging it up with one-liners, the return of the T-1000, Khaleesi pulling off a flawless American accent and making Linda Hamilton proud in the role of Sarah Connor, Matt Smith (Doctor Who) even making an appearance... what's not to love? Well, there are a few missteps along the way. Jai Courtney totally fails at portraying Kyle Reese, and most of the set pieces aren't as elaborate or as intricate as those of the past installments (though Arnold does shine in them). I'm honestly just happy that this totally negates the events of the cluster-eff that was "Terminator: Salvation". For the people who were disappointed with this one, what were they expecting, the second coming of Christ? It's a freaking Terminator movie for God's sakes, logic and consistency not exist in this dojo. In fact, I applaud the filmmakers for playing it fast and loose with the timeline and basically flipping everything on its head. As a stand-alone movie, it works decently, but as a reboot for the franchise, I think it works splendidly, despite one too many "old, but not obsolete" grandpa Arnold jokes. For the first time since "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" was announced, I'm actually looking forward to the next one. Good job, filmmakers.
It doesn't re-invent the boxing movie or pack too many surprises, but it is nothing but respectful to the beloved "Rocky" series and both Stallone and Jordan deliver some powerhouse performances. Jordan straight-up carries the movie for a lot of the running time. The cinematography was superb and the direction and editing on point. Everything gelled. The only things I might have done different are to have given "Pretty" Ricky more personality aside from being a trash-talker, and taken a page from "Southpaw" and made the fights seem more brutal (not that they don't seem realistic, but that movie took it to a whole other level). I really enjoyed this one and would recommend it to anyone.
I'm really conflicted on this one. On the one hand, the photo-realistic landscapes are stunningly gorgeous and there are some shots (the setting sun and the T-Rex ranchers) that will take your breath away. Some of the best moments in this film are told cinematically, without any dialogue whatsoever. On the other hand, the story is so basic and the beats so predictable that most adults will have checked out by the time the film takes its sweet time winding down to its conclusion, which seems more like a relief than a revelation. Don't get me wrong, there are some seriously quality scenes (the campfire with the T-Rexes, the way Arlo learns to swim, the 'howling' scene) but the whole is way less than the sum of its parts (some of which strongly resemble "The Lion King" and "The Land Before Time", both of which are clearly better films). Director Pete Sohn does his best and nails the visual tone poem side of things, but there's really only so far you can take this bare-bones coming-of-age-and-overcoming-your-fears story, especially since Pixar's "storyboard-by-committee" technique has lately resulted in their films playing it super safe so that the message translates into global box office. I'm fine with people all over the world being able to relate to their films on a deep level, but when shooting for the lowest common denominator gets to the point of robbing the work of personality and leaving the audience with a third act that runs on cruise control, it's time to dial it back a notch. When your kid-friendly dinosaur film gets most of its personality from characters' accents, that's when you know the fact that your leads are actual DINOSAURS is underutilized and under-emphasized (throughout, the movie plays it straight, treating dinosaurs as Wild West-era Americans, and Spot as a kind of dog-human hybrid). The lead, Arlo, is actually one of the film's big problems, because the kid that voices him is so annoying I wanted to walk into the voice recording booth and shove a sock in his mouth. Also, just so you all know, the dinosaurs are not meant to represent actual dinosaurs, but rather dinosaurs as they might have been in something likely closer to modern times had they not been wiped out. I have been a Pixar fan since the beginning, but after "Up", their output has been really uneven, with the exception of "Inside Out", which was really well put-together but did not portray the workings of the brain with anything resembling reality. With "The Good Dinosaur," if Pixar either eschewed a script altogether and made an experimental dialogue-free film that emphasized the landscapes and mise-en-scene, or cranked out a halfway decent script that wasn't riddled with cliches, this might have even been deserving of being ranked with the likes of "Wall-E" and "Finding Nemo". Instead, it's just slightly better than "Brave" and "Cars 2". I am giving this a 6 because I felt like it could have been so much more. Everything about this film is a missed opportunity. It was a waste of some beautiful backgrounds to pair them up with such ugly character designs, a waste of great voice talent by having them recite a script that nearly put me to sleep, and a waste of the time of their adult audience members, whose kids will probably enjoy this film once or twice but quickly get bored.
Meh, I expected so much more from Mr. Bird, who up to now has had a stellar track record. "Tomorrowland" is not terrible, just disappointing. The film preaches but never earns its forward-thinking optimism with a weak script, undercooked plot, and let's-make-it-up-as-we-go-along action and technology that fails to establish a believable universe. Here's a tip, Mr. Lindelof: when you're writing a mostly humorless, exposition-filled, "mystery box" plot, it's essential to reward your audience for their patience. But when the third act of this bizarrely violent PG film rolls about, it just kind of lays there until the credits roll. If he stuck the landing, this might have been a 6 or 7. But that was not the case. I felt totally cheated by it. The saddest thing is, the performances are great (especially Robertson and Cassidy, and it's amazing how well these young performers keep the film afloat) and a few of the VFX sequences are stunning, but the film betrays the importance and complexity of its themes by sledge-hammering one very specific message into the audience's skull, a message that ends up being conveniently supported by the happenings of the plot... because reasons. Just... UGH. The potential was totally there, but the script was not. Can you imagine what someone like Bradbury, Sagan, Kubrick, Cronenberg, Tarkovsky, Gilliam, or Roddenberry could have done with this very same premise?? It coulda been a contender. It coulda been something. I'll admit that Brad Bird and Disney's corporate department share a great deal of the fault here, but I see "Tomorrowland" as proof of Lindelof's ineptitude. It shows you can hand him what's essentially a writer's dream - a Futurist blank slate with a blockbuster budget and a rich potential for thematic depth - and he could still find ways to turn it into a one-dimensional non-sequitur that leaves you with the equivalent of cinematic blue balls. NYU should revoke his diploma. Mofo needs to be booted from Hollywood before his dumb*** ruins everything by association. Maybe he should try writing YouTube videos because clearly he doesn't know how to write a movie. In the words of Immortan Joe, I dub this one "MEDIOCRE!!!"
It's hard to review this film, knowing that the three-hour director's cut we're going to eventually get will almost undoubtedly be better. As a stand-alone film, "Age of Ultron" is kind of all over the place. But as the punchline to Marvel's Phase Two, it's a satisfying ensemble character piece, packed with action, and better than it needs to be, but only just slightly. Thanks to Marvel cutting out 40 minutes from the film, the plot is both standard in its progression, and weird in its digressions and handling of violence. The good stuff definitely outnumbers the bad: the Seoul highway chase was intense, beating out anything in Furious 7. Paul Bettany's take on The Vision was a revelation, easily the film's most interesting character. The Hulkbuster sequence ruled (despite it sugarcoating the consequences of the destruction wrought). Most of the character moments, such as those between Black Widow and Bruce Banner, were great showcases of Whedon's ability to layer these otherwise two-dimensional characters. My biggest problem with the action is that it wants to play on such a huge scale, but doesn't show much of the consequences. There are hardly any shots of dead civilians, although based on the insanity of the destruction it should be assumed that hundreds if not thousands of innocent people died. Instead, the film spends a lot of time showing our heroes rescuing people. It defies logic. Although I understand this is technically a Disney film, the bloodless violence makes me a bit uneasy. If it were not for Whedon's sardonic writing and the well-choreographed, fast-paced, kinetic action scenes that seem ripped straight from the pages of Marvel's finest hours, this movie would have been just par for the course. Jay from the RedLetterMedia's "Half in the Bag" described this film as the first time we are seeing **** in the Marvel machine's armor, and I would have to agree. The editing is so disjointed at times, with half-realized ideas, that I would have to say the sum of this film's parts are greater than the whole. For instance, the sequence in Africa with Andy Serkis' character felt shoehorned in. Thor's subplot was almost entirely cut out. The relationship between Tony and Ultron was undercooked. Captain America has some great lines ("it's not about who's better, it's about who's right") but zero character development. But one of the film's glaring problems (for me) was Ultron, who didn't turn out to be as menacing as he made himself out to be in the first few scenes. His insanity angle was not convincing to me. However, my brother really liked the portrayal of the character, so there's that. So the film is not perfect. But for what it is, it's a flawed epic, one that will likely disappoint some and invigorate others... but given the ever-increasing audience expectations and demands, it's actually amazing how well it holds together. Thank you Mr. Whedon for your hard work, and I wish you all the best moving forward.
Oh, man. I don't have words for this film yet. Maybe there are no words, since what George Miller and his team put onscreen defies description and transcends language. But here's my attempt. With technical precision that seems effortless but must surely have taken a small army to manage, Miller weaves his unique, fantastic vision of post-apocalyptic chaos and carnage into a work of piston-pumping poetry, all set to Junkie XL's adrenaline-fueled soundtrack. Without hyperbole, I can say right now that this one of the all-time great action movies. It makes Furious 7 look like a badly edited Mario Kart replay. I'm not gonna lie, there was a moment of vehicular mayhem where I shed a manly tear. T'was one of hope, for my heart had almost forgotten what heights pure cinema was capable of. It's got a minimum of CGI, fantastic stunt work, great set design and art direction, breathtaking locations, and strong performances, even from the supporting cast. This is the movie I've been waiting for my whole life, ever since I smashed little Matchbox vehicles against one another as a child and made comics about sentient cars. There's no prior franchise experience necessary. If you're a connoisseur of action films, you miiiight want to try being in the best theater you can find this weekend. I just can't wait to see it again and am gonna do so as soon as possible. As far as performances, Tom Hardy makes a fine Max, Charlize Theron's Furiosa is up there with Ripley as one of the most badass women in sci-fi, and Nicholas Hoult's Nux is very entertaining. The dude who plays Immortan Joe (he was in the first Mad Max, too) is just perfect, the kind of larger-than-life big boss whom you can imagine inspiring lifelong devotion. Whether or not the story boasts a "feminist agenda" in having a number of strong female characters is up to the eye of the beholder, but it didn't bother this cis, straight man. If you want my real opinion, I think the gender-war-fueled backlash is all hyperbole designed to sell more tickets, and anyone offended enough to not want to see THE FIRST MAD MAX FILM IN 30 YEARS probably needs to have their man card snapped in half. I really want to congratulate everyone involved in the production of this film. I don't even mind if this ends up being the last great action film, but wouldn't it be grand if this was really just the start of a new breed of action films? I'm really, really hoping that Miller gets a chance to make the sequels that he already has scripts and storyboards for. Tom Hardy is apparently signed on for another three films. I say BRING 'EM ON! Valhalla awaits!!
Absolutely loved it. This film isn't going to change the world but it definitely has its heart in the right place. If you enjoyed "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" then you'll be sure to love this. Honestly, this isn't as hokey as reviewers are making it seem, and actually there is a lot of insight here. The script has more than a few heartfelt moments. Rosamund Pike and Simon Pegg show that they still have great chemistry (see "At World's End"). Director Peter Chelsom hasn't made a better movie. Great editing, casting, music, script, etc. Worth a rental at least.
As a huge fan of DiCaprio, Mulligan, Fitzgerald and Lurhmann, I went in with pretty high expectations. Sure enough, the acting, direction and script are top-notch, if a little too faithful to the source material in letter, while being wildly all over the place in tone, leading to a bloated, overlong production. That said, I'd rather take something ambitious over the safe treatment any day: within these 2 1/2 hours, there are moments of incredible power, and the excesses of the time period are well demonstrated through the wicked party scenes. Gatsby's parties are the highlight recalling modern mega-raves or top-notch Vegas clubs with the energy amped to 11, their bombast and spectacle threaten to overwhelm the rest of the film. If only Luhrmann could find a way to ensure that his film's visual dynamism didn't go head-to-head with anything that might be considered subtle... the director's over-abundant style robs the film of is realism: it takes place in a world that's decorated, lit, and shot as if it were an ethereal realm somehow divorced from the everyday, and like its titular character, the film does go above and beyond what's needed to impress. Therein lies the film's biggest problem: the weight of Gatsby's ambitions and the non-stop eye-popping visuals coupled with lightning fast editing takes a toll on the flow of the story. For most of the film, Luhrmann doesn't let his scenes attain an organic flow of their own. His camera swivels through the air as if more interested in the set decoration than his own stars, and the edits rarely slow down even during the most intimate sequences. Still, the performances are great all across the board. DiCaprio is far and away the standout, Maguire's Carroway is thankfully subtle (although his voice overs get to be a bit much), Carey Mulligan (my waifu) brings a real heart and soul to an underwritten and unlikeable Daisy (an unfortunate result of the film following its source material too slavishly), and Joel Edgerton makes a great Tom Buchanan. Perhaps it's telling of the strength of the source material and cast that the human element shines through despite Luhrmann's excesses.
