WASTED POTENTIAL: THE MOVIE "Frankenstein" is a tonally inconsistent and poorly written slog that squanders the talents of its cast and the richness of its source material, delivering a commercial melodrama that should have instead been one of Del Toro's finest works of art. Just like its monster, "Frankenstein" is awkwardly stitched together from different parts: pulpy monster movie; costume drama; and gothic horror. Yes, this sounds like a mess on paper. And yes, it is unfortunately a mess in terms of execution. The first 15 minutes of this movie feel like a deleted scene from the superb TV show "The Terror". The last 15 minutes of this movie feel like a sappy Disney movie that could have played on the Hallmark channel. Many viewers are keen to praise the set design and visuals of "Frankenstein". I only partially agree with this praise. I could look past the brief moments of awful animal CGI. But I could not get past the repetitive camera movements and generic shots. Most of the shots were orchestrated to show the detail of the sets. But shouldn't the camera be used to make the audience feel more engaged in the characters and their actions and emotions? I am really glad I did not see "Frankenstein" in the theatres. Beneath its shiny surface, "Frankenstein" lacks any dread, intrigue, or thematical richness. There is simply not enough suspense or tension to carry the film, and the script is to blame. Victor Frankenstein is reduced to a one-dimensional villain. He never wrestles with internal conflict before creating his monster. He never grapples with the interesting moral questions that should have arisen (and were present in the book) after creating his monster. No, he only regrets making a monster so "stupid" and dangerous. Oscar Isaac gives an unconvincing performance - something I thought I would never say - and you wonder if this is because he had so little to worth with. Then you have Frankenstein's monster, portrayed as a misunderstood creature who only resorts to violence to defend himself. Sure, the monster is humanized in the Mary Shelley novel, but here Del Toro sanitizes the character to the point that he is dull and cliché. Del Toro even seems afraid to make the monster look as hideous as he should look (is he supposed to look like a stand-in for a Tool music video?) Then we have Elizabeth, who should feel like a central character but is woefully underdeveloped. We as an audience are given few reasons to understand why she is attracted to Frankenstein's monster and why we should care. This is a glaring issue considering a huge part of the plot hinges on this relationship. (On a related note, the talents of Mia Goth are utterly wasted here!) The poor characterization in "Frankenstein" accounts largely for its thematic clumsiness. The film tries to make the story about forgiveness, fatherhood, and passing on trauma to others. But why adapt "Frankenstein" the book if you don't want to explore the philosophical and existential themes it is originally known for? The confused tone, uninspired visual storytelling, and bland, simplistic characters could be partially forgiven if the movie was not so long. I was amazed by how not a single scene in this 150+ minute movie made me feel any emotion other an boredom or disappointment. No horror. No sadness. No surprise. I really wanted to enjoy this movie but it felt like a chore to watch since I was never emotionally invested in the characters or their journey. Was their even a journey? All of this is truly frustrating because the potential was there, especially given this director, this source material, and this cast. "Frankenstein" makes it clear that Del Toro loves sentimental and gothic fairy tales and monsters. It is a shame that he relies too much on visuals and character/world design to support the flimsy narratives of his weaker films. Del Toro works best when he makes something truly original, like his magnum opus "Pan's Labyrinth". Sadly, his adaption of the classic Marry Shelley novel makes me think that he appreciates it because of its cultural impact and not because of the thematic depth and moral ambiguity that led to it becoming so timeless.
WASTED POTENTIAL: THE MOVIE "Frankenstein" is a tonally inconsistent and poorly written slog that squanders the talents of its cast and the richness of its source material, delivering a commercial melodrama that should have instead been one of Del Toro's finest works of art. Just like its monster, "Frankenstein" is awkwardly stitched together from different parts: pulpy monster movie; costume drama; and gothic horror. Yes, this sounds like a mess on paper. And yes, it is unfortunately a mess in terms of execution. The first 15 minutes of this movie feel like a deleted scene from the superb TV show "The Terror". The last 15 minutes of this movie feel like a sappy Disney movie that could have played on the Hallmark channel. Many viewers are keen to praise the set design and visuals of "Frankenstein". I only partially agree with this praise. I could look past the brief moments of awful animal CGI. But I could not get past the repetitive camera movements and generic shots. Most of the shots were orchestrated to show the detail of the sets. But shouldn't the camera be used to make the audience feel more engaged in the characters and their actions and emotions? I am really glad I did not see "Frankenstein" in the theatres. Beneath its shiny surface, "Frankenstein" lacks any dread, intrigue, or thematical richness. There is simply not enough suspense or tension to carry the film, and the script is to blame. Victor Frankenstein is reduced to a one-dimensional villain. He never wrestles with internal conflict before creating his monster. He never grapples with the interesting moral questions that should have arisen (and were present in the book) after creating his monster. No, he only regrets making a monster so "stupid" and dangerous. Oscar Isaac gives an unconvincing performance - something I thought I would never say - and you wonder if this is because he had so little to worth with. Then you have Frankenstein's monster, portrayed as a misunderstood creature who only resorts to violence to defend himself. Sure, the monster is humanized in the Mary Shelley novel, but here Del Toro sanitizes the character to the point that he is dull and cliché. Del Toro even seems afraid to make the monster look as hideous as he should look (is he supposed to look like a stand-in for a Tool music video?) Then we have Elizabeth, who should feel like a central character but is woefully underdeveloped. We as an audience are given few reasons to understand why she is attracted to Frankenstein's monster and why we should care. This is a glaring issue considering a huge part of the plot hinges on this relationship. (On a related note, the talents of Mia Goth are utterly wasted here!) The poor characterization in "Frankenstein" accounts largely for its thematic clumsiness. The film tries to make the story about forgiveness, fatherhood, and passing on trauma to others. But why adapt "Frankenstein" the book if you don't want to explore the philosophical and existential themes it is originally known for? The confused tone, uninspired visual storytelling, and bland, simplistic characters could be partially forgiven if the movie was not so long. I was amazed by how not a single scene in this 150+ minute movie made me feel any emotion other an boredom or disappointment. No horror. No sadness. No surprise. I really wanted to enjoy this movie but it felt like a chore to watch since I was never emotionally invested in the characters or their journey. Was their even a journey? All of this is truly frustrating because the potential was there, especially given this director, this source material, and this cast. "Frankenstein" makes it clear that Del Toro loves sentimental and gothic fairy tales and monsters. It is a shame that relies too much on visuals and character/world design to support the flimsy narratives of his weaker films. Del Toro works best when he makes something truly original, like his magnum opus "Pan's Labyrinth". Sadly, his adaption of the classic Marry Shelley novel makes me think that he appreciates it because of its cultural impact and not because of the thematic depth and moral ambiguity that led to it becoming so timeless.
Shockingly bad and bland. The original is not good either but this version makes the original look like Citizen Kane in comparison. Even if you can look past the ridiculous writing (did AI write the script?) and atrocious acting, the action scenes feel fake due to the overused CGI. I don't know how a movie with so much fighting still manages to be so boring. Did somebody blackmail Jake Gyllenhal into being in this?
"Oppenheimer" uses sound and its terrific cast to avoid total collapsing under the weight of its ambition. Cillian Murphy is exceptional and essentially carries the movie. Unfortunately, when you set aside the acting and technical proficiency of "Oppenheimer", the movie is emotionally inert, overly expository, poorly paced and structured, shallow, unfocused, and underdeveloped. Nolan showed with "Interstellar" that he is capable of making emotionally resonant films but I left "Oppenheimer" feeling nothing. Cillian Murphy does so much with his subtle facial expressions but the script does not give him enough room to explore the psyche of his character. Part of the reason lies in the dialogue. "Oppenheimer" consists mostly of scenes of people in rooms talking. This is not inherently bad - "The Social Network" proves that movies about people talking in rooms can be riveting and engaging - but in "Oppenheimer" the dialogue is mostly just people explaining what is happening so that the audience can follow. The golden rule of storytelling is show, don't tell. "Oppenheimer" is 90% telling. This is part of the reason why the movie feels so long. Another reason why the movie feels so long is because of the pacing. We are constantly jumping between timelines and this non-linear structure does not service the story in any way. If anything it just makes the film disorienting. "Oppenheimer" also feels clunky due to its lack of focus. What is the movie about? It is partly about Oppenheimer's personal relationships, partly about Oppenheimer's rise as a scientific titan, partly about the development of the bomb, partly about Oppenheimer being accused of being disloyal to his country, and partly about Oppenheimer fighting against political opposition. I can't help but feel that a movie focused on a few of these aspects would have been more powerful and effective. "Oppenheimer" would have also benefited from having more complex and dynamic characters. One of Nolan's biggest weaknesses is writing female characters, and nowhere is this more apparent than it is with "Oppenheimer". Two excellent actresses, Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh, are severely underused. If "Oppenheimer" was interested in exploring the main character's personal relationships then you would think that these female characters would have been given more things to do or say. Oppenheimer as a character feels underdeveloped too, which is strange considering we spend 3 hours with him. By the end of the film I did not feel like I knew more about who Oppenheimer was as a person, only the broad strokes of what he did and who he did it with. In the end "Oppenheimer" feels very surface level and safe. The premise of a scientist building a destructive weapon and feeling conflicted about its use to kill hundreds of thousands of people is ripe for exploring moral, philosophical, and even existential questions. "Oppenheimer" seems reluctant to challenge the viewer in this regard. I would go further and argue that Nolan seems reluctant as a director to show the true horrors of the devastation caused by the bombs. For me this choice is not brilliant but rather irresponsible. If you know nothing about Oppenheimer beforehand then you will most likely enjoy this movie. If you like movies with star-studded casts then will probably like the movie too. The acting is what saves the film from being a complete waste of time. It really is nice to see RDJ play a character that is not Iron Man for a change.
"Asteroid City" is a step-up from "French Dispatch" but still one of the weakest offerings from Wes Anderson. The signature style is there but - unlike with Anderson classics like "The Royal Tenenbaums" and "The Grand Budapest Hotel" - there is a noticeable lack of heart. The characters in "Asteroid City" don't feel like people. Instead they feel like side-characters or puppets in a Wes Anderson doll-house, delivering their lines in the Wes Anderson style - robotic, sarcastic and smug - that comes off tedious instead of charming in this instance. After watching "Asteroid City", I wondered why half of the characters were even in the story (the teacher and student characters immediately come to my mind). It is a shame that the plot in "Asteroid City" fails to generate any momentum. This review doesn't have any plot spoilers but honestly I do not know what I could even spoil since nothing meaningful happens. There are some mildly comical scenes here and there but nothing truly engaging. The framing device of "Asteroid City" is unnecessary, disorienting, and indulgent: the audience (us) watches actors play actors in a play while at the same time watching said play unfold as a movie. What purpose does this ultimately serve? I could not find one. Overall my opinion of "Asteroid City" becomes less favorable the more I think about it. The film treats the unique style as the focal point whereas Wes Anderson's betters films use the same unique style to tell stories that have characters that change in meaningful ways and connect to the audience. I hate having to rate "Asteroid City" so low because I would rate many of the director's films as 8/10 or higher. Short version of my review: pick any other Wes Anderson film at random and there is a 90% chance you will enjoy that film more than "Asteroid City".
Decent movie, abduction/escape plot with some supernatural elements thrown in. Good acting across the board, especially from the child actors. Somewhat creepy and suspenseful. Won't see it again. But don't regret seeing it.
Atmospheric, authentic, brutal, engrossing, epic, intense, tragic. "The Northman" is the first film in quite some time that made me feel like I was transported somewhere else. Watching this movie was like living through the pages of mythical folklore. No punches are pulled here: "Vikings" are not portrayed glamorously, and the violence is unflinching and honest. Every scene completely captures and demands the attention of the audience. On a purely aesthetic level the film is sublime, but that is not to discredit the terrific acting and writing too. I almost want to describe "The Northman" as "Conan the Barbarian" meets "Hamlet". The fantastical elements never feel out of place (if anything the movie would feel strange without them). The storytelling is efficient - not a single scene or line of dialogue is wasted - and the journey of the protagonist unfolds in a very Shakespearean manner. Even if you have no interest in expect acting, writing, and cinematography you should see this movie just to see how action scenes SHOULD be filmed (and there are plenty of those). I am expecting and hoping this movie to appeal to average film-goers as well as those who appreciate cinema.
Exceptional directing, acting, and production design is not enough to save "Nightmare Alley" from its massive flaws - poor pacing, shallow characterization, and a narrative that is overly episodic and predictable. Guillermo Del Toro is obviously a talented director who understands how to craft a cinematic experience and get believable performances out of his actors (Bradley Cooper delivers perhaps his best performance ever in "Nightmare Alley"). Del Toro also nails the atmosphere in "Alley" - the carnival scenes feel grimy and repulsive. But that is where my praise for "Alley" ends. The film is egregiously long - it has no business being longer than 90 minutes considering its plot. Even worse, it squanders its time: 150 minutes later and the audience is left with barely any information about its characters. This leads me to the biggest problem with "Nightmare Alley": the central character is woefully underwritten and uninteresting. The audience is given no reason to care about his fate. He is supposed to be suave and charming but this intention never resonates. He has one motivation throughout the whole story and it is a superficial one at that. He has no redeeming characteristics (yes, even an antihero needs to have one of these). He does not change in any meaningful way. So when the film was finally finished slogging towards its telegraphed, unsurprising conclusion, I was left with the biggest "so what?" feeling in recent memory.
A good first half of a movie that is unsatisfying mainly because its story is incomplete. That is the biggest criticism I have but it is a fairly big one.
Not scary, creepy, or intriguing. First act is decent, second act is boring and repetitive, and the third act is goofy and off-the-rails (though not in a good way). Could have been enjoyable shlock but the tone is all over the place. The characters were one dimensional and poorly acted.
This movie will be divisive and its misleading marketing will do it no favors. I did not love it or hate it but I still think you should see it because it is unique. This is a spoiler free review. Starting with the positives. This movie captures the grit of the medieval period but is at the same time very mysterious and otherworldly. The storytelling is predominately visual and creative in its approach. Believable acting throughout and nothing is spoon-fed to the audience. The dialogue is delivered perfectly and authentically and I loved the color palette that was used. There is an incredible sequence near the end of the movie that I will not spoil. Now the negatives. At times I felt the film was too abstract or too moody for its own good. The pace of the film is slow and stays that way throughout. People expecting a lot of action will be disappointed (the trailer shows basically all of the "action" highlights). There are some fairly significant changes from the source material that I feel undermine the core message of the film and lead to a somewhat unsatisying ending. If you are unfamiliar with the source material you may be confused at times.
A refreshing and genuine film that I don't want to spoil. I recommend going into this movie as blind as possible (the trailer does not give away much anyways). Just don't expect an action or comedy movie. There are some humorous moments but the film is primarily a drama. Cage gives his best performance since... well pretty much forever.
A tonally inconsistent, dragged out mess with questionable visuals, lazy writing, and an overbearing soundtrack. "Cruella" bounces back and forth between goofy heist moments and "serious" moments so frequently and jarringly that ultimately all of the moments come across as comedic. Is this movie for kids? The creators of the movie don't even know. CGI is inexplicably used for some dogs in the movie (but not others?). I will admit that the costumes were well done. If only more focus was given to the script. Most charcters are archetypes defined by one personality trait, character motivations are weak at best, the dialogue is by-the-numbers, and the only surprising moments in the story either undermine the rest of the story or just feel completely unbelievable. There is a plot twist I will not spoil that is eye-rolling to say the least. All these faults would be more tolerable if the movie was not so darn long. The story of this movie did not need 2 hours to tell. And the majority of those 2 hours is saturated with unnecessary voice over (often explaining what is already obvious visually) and pop music. I liked the soundtrack but the movie relied on it too heavily and did not usually integrate it with the visuals effectively. I can't really recommend this movie to anybody. Emma Stone tried her best to salvage this disaster but was cringe-worthy to be honest.
In my opinion, this movie is a masterpiece, but that isn't to say it is without faults. The biggest problem with the movie is the way it is told. To be cutting between 3 story lines taking place at different times and telling each individual story slightly out of order can be a little confusing and ruins the narrative flow at times. That being said, I found the film to be profound and emotionally moving.
I really wanted to like "Mother!" since the director has made films that I absolutely adore, such as Pi, The Fountain, and The Wrestler. I even liked parts of "Requiem for a Dream" and "Black Swan." It is sad when you compare the likes of "Mother!" to these other films. The only thing shocking about "Mother!" is how bland it is. You know when you get a joke but you still don't find it funny? Well, I understood the message and allegory of "Mother!" but didn't find it interesting or thought provoking in any way at all. The film is so bad that it doesn't even deserve to be called pretentious because that would imply an ounce of ambition or vision on the directors part. It doesn't help that "Mother!" has the subtlety of a ten ton hammer and doesn't even add an original spin on its retelling of the bible. Some movies are too smart for their audiences and don't deserve the hatred they receive. "Mother!" is not one of them. It is the art-house equivalent of a Transformers film. It deserves to be hated and it deserves to fail. Only gets a 2/10 because I generally like the director.
An excellent movie that was unfortunately marketed as something else. Tense, emotional, atmospheric, with terrific acting all around by the cast. All the negative reviews are by people that wanted a movie with monsters and jump scares where everything was spoonfed to them. These people should be hating on the marketing team behind this film's trailer, not the film itself. This movie is about the second coming of bubonic plague. The monster here is fear, human nature, desperation, and the inevitability of death. Nobody knows what is happening or why, which honestly makes it that more terrifying. If you are like me you aren't scared by movies about ghosts or monsters that yell "BOO" and jump at the screen. Instead you are scared by the true horrors that the real world offers. That is what this film is about. The people complaining about this film's ending (which I won't spoil) clearly missed the entire point of it. They deserve to be disappointed. Maybe next time they will research a movie before seeing it instead of only going off of today's highly unreliable trailers.
This film fails as a sci-fi film, an action film, a horror film, and a drama. Apparently audiences are supposed to be swayed by pretty imagery, half-baked philosophy, and allusions to great works of art. Instead of a tense, atmospheric horror film - like the masterful Alien - we get a movie about an android with daddy issues and a god complex. Most of the film revolves around guessing which severely underdeveloped character will die next. I just saw the movie and I'm struggling to remember 90% of the characters' names or personality traits - oh wait, they had no personality traits. So what you are basically seeing is a teenage slasher that is trying to play itself off as a "thinking man's film." It is utterly embarrassing. It would be one thing of the movie was actually scary but it isn't. It is just gross and lots of people die. That is about it.
Phenomenal. Captivating. Gripping. Everything - the acting, story, cinematography, sound design, score - was excellent. I can't wait to see it again. What a film.
Boring, formulaic, uninspired, and generic. Pretty much sums it up. If you've seen any other Marvel superhero movie you have basically already seen this one.
Pros +Will Smith is great as Deadshot +Margot Robbie is excellent as Harley +Viola Davis holds the movie together +Different take on The Joker Cons -Characters are made too likeable (aren't they supposed to be BAD?) -Deadshot is the only fleshed out character -Awkward lines, jokes, and use of music -Sub-par acting by the majority of the cast -Tone jumps around all over place (either go serious/gritty or go funny and light... don't try to do both!) -The plot is extremely bare bones -Boring villain with boring henchmen
The script is an incoherent mess. Batman is the only character with a clear motivation. This movie has the worst interpretation of Lex Luthor I have ever seen. The selling point of the movie is seeing Batman and Superman fight but you have to wait forever to see the fight and the fight is over in the blink of an eye. The addition of Wonder Woman and Doomsday is unnecessary and only adds to the convolution. That remains me, the actress who plays Wonder Woman is atrocious. The only actor who did a good job was Ben Affleck. It is a shame that Batman and Superman are unlikeable psychopaths. Lex Luthor is the only character worth rooting for to be honest since he is the most sane character out of all of them! Don't see the movie. It's a stupid, stupid mess.
Do NOT see this film if you are expecting a typical horror film. This is a Sundance film. There won't be jumpscares or anything like that. The movie is really more of a period piece drama with psychological horror. The purpose isn't to freak you out but instead to explore themes such as paranoia, faith, and sin. The ending has proven to be very divisive. I wasn't wowed but I wasn't disappointed either. The acting is top notch, especially when it comes to the child actors, and it is shot better than most "horror" movies. See it if you are interested in a well made drama with some creepy elements.
Despite all of its zaniness, style, violence, profanity, and crassness, Deadpool is nowhere near as shocking, clever, or revolutionary as it thinks it is, not only squandering a golden opportunity to satirize the superhero film but falling into its tropes as well.
The performances by Blunt, Brolin, and Del Toro are fantastic and believable. The action sequences are not only intense but built up to very well. The cinematography is also far above average for a film of this genre. The only thing preventing me from giving this film higher than an 8 is that I don't have any desire to see it again.
This movie claims to be an original horror/comedy. First of all, it isn't original. There is nothing in this movie you haven't seen in countless other movies, unless you have never seen a found footage style movie that relies on jump scares. Second of all, the movie just isn't scary. Horror needs more than jump scares to be scary, and all the jump scares in this movie were dreadfully predictable. Third of all, is the movie funny? Depends. When I knew it was trying to make me laugh I only ended up cringing. I think I actually found the most humor in the parts that were supposed to be taken seriously. There is a decent twist in "The Visit" that I won't spoil because it is the only thing that saves the movie. I am waiting for the twist when M. Night makes a good movie post-Sixth Sense.
The movie suffers from insufficient exposition and character development. We are told more than we are shown and this weakens the film when it comes to moments that are supposed to have an impact on the audience. The decision to not make Whitey (Depp's character) the central character is a giant mistake, and it is disappointing how uninteresting and one-dimensional the character is, despite Depp's command of the role. The storytelling is disconnected and is more similar to a documentary than anything else. Most scenes are devoid of tension and fairly predictable. Despite the excellent cast the actors come off bad due to the half-baked, dull script. Finally, the movie suffers from bland shot composition and cinematography, so don't expect any shots to wow you. I have seen many crime films and this is the first one that has actively bored me. The film squandered most of its potential and could have been a very interesting character study. The only reason to see this movie is to see Depp taking himself and his career serious again. Apart from that this movie is entirely passable.
I don't care if I sound like a broken record when I say this: Skyfall really is the "Dark Knight" of the James Bond film franchise. You don't need to be a bond fan to enjoy this one. The action is comprehensible and exciting. The acting is great all around, with Daniel Craig and Javier Bardem always threatening to steal the show. Casino Royale was great, but Skyfall may just be better.
Even though this is my first Wes Anderon film, I enjoyed every moment of Moonrise Kingdom, savoring the originality of the characters and the atmosphere. There is something so unique and refreshing about the film... it is a breath of fresh air. Like any good drama, the movie is sincere and heartfelt, a fantasy filled with hints of nostalgia. Like any good comedy, the movie is very funny and very entertaining, with Bill Murray stealing the show at times. Part of the humor comes from the fact that the characters take themselves more seriously than we think they should. Yet the characters are sympathetic and feel realistic. The story can certainly pride itself in being unpredictable. The cinematography is simple yet elegant. Definitely see Moonrise Kingdom.
