Change Your Image
caleblimsw
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Asteroid City (2023)
Anderson's uneven metafiction is flawed but still shot through with brilliance
Wes Anderson's sci-fi romantic-comedy romp may not be his best, but there is just enough brilliance in between the flatter sections of the script to generate some genuine cinematic emotion at portions of the movie.
Following a star-studded cast of characters who head to a Nevada town for a stargazers' convention that quickly takes a turn for the extraterrestrial, the premise is instantly brilliant, providing a perfect testing ground for the kind of story which Anderson rolls out.
Credit where credit is due, Anderson and co-story creator Roman Coppola's screenplay is ambitious, audacious, and creative, with a particularly intriguing structure that blends fiction with reality, taking multiple different formats and generating something unique as a result. However it also suffers from pacing issues, especially in the first act, where the focus of the story is unclear and the vast number of characters unable to make a proper impact on the screen.
As a result, we are treated to a series of dizzyingly beautiful shots, in composition, cinematography, and production design, complete from the Anderson signature of smooth single-take camera moves, but none of which gel together properly into a cohesive movie until about halfway through. Once it does, however, this movie becomes exactly what it's trying to be, sophisticated and a finely detailed look at a long-lost world.
The actors rarely extend the character beyond the script's quirks, and that only adds to the sterile feel of something pretty but ultimately pointless throughout the first hour.
As it gains momentum, however, and as actors of a calibre of Jason Schwartzman and Scarlett Johansson get the chance to flex their capabilities beyond Anderson-stoicism, the movie starts to come together, and towards the end is a deeply thoughtful meditation on art, performance, the stories we tell ourselves about deeper meanings, and even about grief and existentialism.
The music, provided by Anderson stalwart Alexandre Desplat, is also noteworthy in it's perfect encapsulation of the Anderson style, and his needle drops remain as joyously wonderful as ever.
Although not close to his best, it is still a work of extraordinary originality, and a visual feast of intricate details and quirkily entertaining cinema. This will win Anderson no new converts, but surely anyone can appreciate the effort and thought put into this movie, though somewhat unwieldy and inefficient.
Barbie (2023)
Entertaining bubblegum fluff piece lacks true subtlety
Consistently entertaining, imaginative, and occasionally wickedly funny, Greta Gerwig helms an audaciously original take on the iconic doll, fashioning a pastel wonderland with deeper, albeit crudely pushed, morals and ideas. Margot Robbie stars as Barbie, the stereotypical perfect doll whose carefree existence in the utopian Barbieland is one day disrupted, leading her eventually into the real world, accompanied by the hapless Ken, played by Ryan Gosling in a valiant attempt to drag character from caricature.
Baumbach and Gerwig's script is loaded with references and nods to many aspects of pop culture, pulling them off pretty successfully with the aid of Gerwig's direction, which matches the tone of the script perfectly, at turns breathlessly light and then scathingly precise.
The production design team in particular clearly got much of the funding, with lush and detailed sets, picture-perfect outfits, and enough pink to cause a temporary world shortage of the colour. Robbie in particular does a fabulous job of capturing the subtleties of inner struggles behind a perfect facade, and it is on her character that the movie finds its feet and produces sparks of deeper emotion. Gosling, meanwhile, delivers some of the best comedic timing and lines of the movie, and does his best to convince us that the script did not severely underwrite his role, or in fact the roles of everyone save the idea of womanhood.
For a movie which purports to deliver a nuanced take on the influence of Barbie and the implications of its commercial success in a world admittedly mostly governed by men, parts of the script come off as overly preachy and about as subtle as the amount of pink in this movie. This does detract from the entertainment factor, especially with the mild stakes and average pacing, meaning that when you're looking at it, it's nice to look at, but you could easily not be looking at it either.
Many of the ideas introduced are thought-provoking and interesting in the context of the meaning of humanity, especially in the first two acts. In the third, much of those ideas get resolved far too easily, and on a couple occasions, in a manner which undercuts the message of equality it purports to show.
There are some standout moments, especially a ridiculously funny and entertaining sequence featuring Gosling's Ken towards the end, and one or two impactful, quiet moments where Robbie and Gerwig gel together perfectly, but in between them is a vacuous fantasy that rests somewhere comfortably between bubblegum fluff and feminist hit piece.
Another thing to note is the music, which is superb throughout, and matched mostly by Gerwig's direction and her staging of some great sequences.
Never a struggle to watch, shot through with occasionally successfully executed ideas, it leaves one with a good feeling, but nothing as lasting as it wishes it could be.
Oppenheimer (2023)
Nolan delivers dazzling, dizzying character study of a flawed man who changed the world
Christopher Nolan tackles one of the most divisive scientific achievements in human history--the invention of the atomic bomb--through the lens of it's chief creator, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and the resulting fallout this achievement had on Oppenheimer himself.
A devastating and unflinchingly clear movie, it weaves through time with two main points of view, filmed alternatively in beautifully rendered colour and in a starkly entrancing black and white. This movie must be seen in a movie theatre, it practically demands it, with sweeping shots and visual effects of the absolute highest calibre. There is no question that what you are seeing is practically reality, the complexity and beauty of the visuals giving the sense that you are seeing things exactly as Oppenheimer saw them. It is a stunning achievement of direction, to make a movie so in-tune with its main character that every single emotion can be felt through the screen, and much of that can be attributed to the capability of Cillian Murphy, the undoubted star of this movie, whose piercing eyes and extreme subtlety lend to him a quiet fragility amongst total and utter conviction, unpicking a man of contradictions in a manner which reveals the depth of feeling and conflict that Oppenheimer battled throughout his life. He is not an easy character to like, and that is the point. He is a flawed genius, as they all are, a man with ego, with compassion, with the mental strength to coordinate a titanic effort to change the world, and whose emotions can be overwhelmed in a single phone call.
A triumph of perspective, it is a character study which leaps through time and space in a way which would unbalance most biopics. Under Nolan's careful hand, every sequence informs another, slowly unfurling, slowly building tension which reaches not one, not two, but three spectacular peaks of release.
Between these peaks, however, are the troughs, necessary exposition and quieter moments given to the movie, where it almost feels like the train is running to a stop, only for it to pick up and roar you straight into the heart of the next great scene. These troughs are where the movie wallows a little too much osce-wise, where it gets lost in the details and becomes a little muddled.
Its other great failure is the scarcity of character given in particular to Kitty, Oppenheimer's wife, and his two children. Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh give more dimension to characters who, through no fault of their own, are forced onto the sidelines through the sheer scope of Nolan's narrative, but whose involvement is still vital to the emotional core of the movie. Robert Downey Jr takes the other big role of Lewis Strauss, a government official who recruits Oppenheimer to a government board on Atomic Energy after the war. He gives Strauss the necessary charisma, the necessary intensity to push back against Murphy's total control of the screen.
Ludwig Goransson's score is exceptional, motifs appearing perfectly in sync with a superb sound design, lending so much extra intensity and detail to so many sequences in this movie. The sound design is simply perfection, adding to the narrative and to the character of Oppenheimer as well. Jennifer Lame's editing is so so brilliant, especially in the sequences where tension is high. Clean, efficient, technically masterful editing which turns scenes into with hammer blows.
Lastly, Tom Conti's brief appearances as the famed physicist Albert Einstein provide the perfect pivot moments of the movie, putting down a definitive stamp of almost prophetic authority on a fittingly complex, nuanced, and chillingly beautiful portrait of the man who helped change the reality of the world as we know it.
Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One (2023)
McQuarrie and Cruise hit the bullseye dead on
Watched this in IMAX. Brilliant experience.
Tom Cruise and Christopher McQuarrie deliver again with perhaps their most accomplished work yet; Dead Reckoning Part One is a glorious spectacle of pure adrenaline shot through with emotion and a dreadful sense of mortality that elevates this from the typical popcorn action flick. One of the great problems of the modern thriller is how to adopt the international superspy to a time where technology is king. McQuarrie's screenplay deals with that with aplomb, twisting together plot threads with increasing complexity and pulling everything right with suspense. It is perhaps one of the great screenplays, a perfect combination of ruthlessly efficient dialogue, flowing action sequences that naturally introduce themselves and move with the emotion of the characters, and a pace that takes one in the hand and blasts off until you can never let go. Star-studded throughout with great performances, Tom Cruise nevertheless stands out, if that were ever in question. Subtle emotion, comedy, all-out action, he does it all, so much so that you wonder if, at this point, Tom Cruise is Ethan Hunt in reality as well. The visuals are death-defying, quite literally, although the necessity of CGI to remove the stunt team's safety equipment is perhaps one of the only minor gripes with this movie. Action sequences are staged with a manic joy and a steady hand all in one, and the only major issue this movie has is the length of one or two such set pieces, where the shock value wears off and the occasional quip has flown past. This is not to say that the movie doesn't have proper slower beats, it does, and handles them quite well, although it must be said that those scenes rely more on the emotional rapport we already enjoy with old characters, and on the considerable skills of Rebecca Ferguson, Ving Rhames, and Hayley Atwell. These scarcer moments are perhaps one of the few weaker points in the movie, where it feels that maybe some action would've been better off traded for more character work to improve the emotional complexity of the characters. Christopher McQuarrie's direction occasionally hams things up just a tad too much, with several scenes that felt just slightly too silly and the occasional lapse in editing, but these are minor issues in what is perhaps the best action movie Tom Cruise has ever made. And to think it's just the first half of the story.
The Mandalorian: Chapter 22: Guns for Hire (2023)
RPG sidequest + children's fairytale = 30 minutes wasted
Jon Favreau continues to prove that he has no real idea how to write long-form series, and also that he is struggling for ideas, as after an episode that promised to up the stakes for the series and progress a meandering and quite honestly plain lazy storyline, he follows that up with a cameo-filled snoozefest.
This episode sees Djarin and Kryze attempt to find the Nite Owls, who abandoned Kryze after her failure to take the Darksaber, and looks promising; the two have to convince a group of stubborn Mandalorians to return to under the leader who has seemingly failed at everything. The potential for deeper character work with cardboard cutout characters such as Axe Woves, Koska Reeves, and to give Bo-Katan even more work to do, is huge.
Instead, Favreau wastes it with a subplot that takes up 30 minutes, and is eye-rollingly cringey. There is no sense of the quiet maturity which saturated the first couple episodes of the first season, instead devolving to children's fiction, with an abysmally boring Lizzo and Jack Black cameo in particular.
It literally reads like a fairytale with pretty pictures you read to your 4 year old niece while forced to babysit; our heroes land in a utopia, but there's a problem. A crotchety old man points them along the way. There's a brief and forgettable action sequence. Our hero learns to not be rude to droids. A helpful side character tells our heroes everything they need to know. They confront the villain, the aforementioned old man, who has hazy (read: the writers didn't bother to give him one) motivations but threatens to kill the city. Our heroes stop him with ease. They get the Key to the city (conveniently always within reach), and one of them gets a knighthood.
Oh, and then afterwards there's a short scuffle which could decide the fate of Mandalore. No biggie, we can wrap that up real quick. This again proves how much Favreau misunderstands Mandalorians. The Darksaber is no be-all end-all, and for every one of the Nite Owls to abandon Kryze, who had led them for years, surely the Darksaber will not change their reservations, or Djarin could've just waved the Darksaber and told them to follow him.
Visually speaking, this episode is a shrug. Bryce Dallas Howard, often cited as one of the top directors in the series, is just okay here, not helped again by horrid writing and a lack of any memorable sequences to be illuminated by inspired direction.
Lazy writing has become a hallmark of season 3 so far, hazy character motivations, questionable character choices, a lack of consistency, general incoherence, 1+1=2 plotting without any subtlety or complexity, and this episode has all of that combined.
I didn't come into this show expecting True Detective, but I didn't expect the discount Hardy Boys either. Compared to the low water marks of The Bad Batch season 2, this sinks further.
Perhaps Favreau should get over himself, and get competent writers in the room. Matt Michnovetz, in particular, has distinguished himself in the Bad Batch, and he has several regular writers, such as Jennifer Corbett and Amanda Rose Munoz.
Favreau needs help. He is clearly losing track of where he is going. The same problem with The Book of Boba Fett is resurfacing; good ideas, overly simplistic plotlines, bad pacing, average dialogue, and the worst sin, inconsisten characters.
World on Fire: Episode #1.6 (2019)
I am incredibly disappointed and hope this is an anomaly
After a return to form with a stunning burst of action and good writing amidst that in episode 5, the follow-up to it flops so limply it breaks any momentum the show may have had. Littered throughout with lazy writing and a near total misunderstanding of pace, this episode fulfils one of my greatest fears, which the previous episodes had managed to avoid. This fear is simple: that the show would eventually lose it's balance among the multiple storylines it had to juggle, and crash. Bowker proves here that he shouldn't have written this show alone, without additional assistance.
Along with an unstated (though estimated 2 weeks or so) time jump, comes several massive leaps in logic, such as a French ambulance team who was allowed onto Dunkirk beach to take casualties and then transported them all the way to Paris, through German lines, which is Bowker's transparently contrived method to bring the Webster and Tom storylines together so he could save some time. Other logic leaps include Tom and his French escort teleporting through Nazi occupied Paris, Nazi occupied France, all of Vichy France, and over the Pyrenees without any trouble, even though Tom's scenes show him to be a bit of an idiot, and he has no French speaking capacity. The show makes it seem as though it's a trip that took them less than a week, even though they don't have any form of transport that we see. Very shoddy writing. Also missing here is character development, with Lois stagnating after a bunch of pointless scenes where she simply acts annoyed and does little else, Webster and Albert still remaining very dull characters, spending half the episode almost as though the Nazis have not barged into France while the two of them served on the front lines. Their plotline was already weak, and it weakens further here as Webster goes from running away from drunk Germans in his house to proclaiming confidently that the Germans won't touch him because he's American. More pointless scenes ensue as Stieber gives Webster the camp's location, where more useless scenes occur. Without any characters that have a deeper personality or indeed anything interesting to do or say, this is a plotline that really should've been cut completely or partially, especially given the massive amount of screentime it was given in this episode. Imagine if we'd had an episode where we replaced the Paris plotline with Kasia's resistance reacting to the German celebrations once they took Paris, or with Tom being rescued by deserters hiding behind the lines, or even with him and some others in a boat without power in the middle of the Channel? Or hell, just dedicate the time to giving more development to the established characters, instead of speedrunning everything into quick scenes that have no impact at all, like Hilda's mother standing on a table to repeat a line, which looked so dumb it pulled me out of the show.
Even if the scenes were well written, the pacing is horrible, all over the place, meaning that none of the show flowed and it was hard to get into any of the scenes at all, no matter how well done the sets, actors, special effects and wardrobe, other realistic features (like Germans speaking German as though have throughout), and not even some good direction and camera work could really get me back into the episode.
Really hoping for better in the next episode and the prospective next season; there are really solid parts of these storylines and some good ideas, but in this mess, it's looking more and more like it might not be enough, although this has been far and away the worst offender of this season, while previous episodes have ranged from average to excellent.
Bedtime Stories (2008)
This is the power of nostalgia and a kid's POV...giving this 6 stars and not 3
This is not a great movie.
Adam Sandler plays a hotel handyman with his usual loudmouthed comedic style, toned down a little for children. Although grating, overbearing, and occasionally flat-out stupid, Sandler's everyman routine works to a certain extent, with enough simple jokes to pull some laughs out of the kids. Visually, it's actually...not too bad. This is no Star Wars, but it's not Birdemic either. Russell Brand's effortless humour is good enough to pull this movie from falling into the pit of cringe which Sandler often generates, especially as the kids do a passable job with their acting.
The plot's followable, easily enough, and there's enough usage of special effects to draw a kid's eye. It has it's moments of comedy, and if it ends in the usual contrived manner...so what?
Admittedly I watched this when I was 8, and some of that nostalgia is leaking in as I recall this movie. If I'd seen it now, it would be an instant 3-4. But still, nostalgia, coupled with the fact that this movie is relatively inoffensive and simple, mean that I'll rate it a little higher.
Also, this is still one of the better Sandler movies. He isn't always outstandingly inane in this one.
Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
Lavish rom-com entertaining but far from profound
This movie, which could very easily have fallen into many deep and unforgivable trenches, manages to neatly sidestep most of them with a simple premise: what if we focused on just the rich?
In a retread of the classic trope of an unconventional love interest, expect everything to be exactly as you think it will be. The cast does a passable job, and where the movie shines is in its heady depictions of the excess of the rich and in admittedly fun sequences of classic gossiping and high-school style backstabbing.
Nothing much in this movie ever passes beyond mildly entertaining, with jokes that alternate between funny and flat, fun and nearly fantasy-driven moments of excess, and the occasional burst of late-movie poignancy.
What disappoints most is the inability of the screenwriters (or even the original novelist Kwan) to truly integrate this story and its characters into the context its in. As it is, the Singapore context feels more like window dressing; a convenient prop rather than a vital piece of the puzzle.
Perhaps not all of this is down to story. Perhaps some of it is down to execution. But as a Singaporean, born and raised, I felt nothing apart from the occasional flare of national pride at appropriate moments. Believe nothing of the representation hype--more Asians is not a reason to praise this movie.
The final act toes the line between some profoundness and sheer cliche, and on some level it does make enough sense for the rest of the story. Several greatly unneeded side-characters (Awkwafina's performance is laughably cringy) and limp subplots throughout also spoil some of the movie's otherwise upbeat and entertaining atmosphere.
A lack of subtlety in the writing, particularly when it comes to the actions of Eleanor, the matriarch of the rich family, further complicates the matter. The general story is solid, but without any subtlety, it's already mediocre impact is dulled further.
Even after a recent rewatch, many details slip my mind when I root around for things to talk about. Expect your experience to be similar: a fun enough, enjoyable ride for a while, full of lavish opulence and occasional sparks of emotional and cultural significance, but in the end nothing more than an above-average rom com destined to fade in your mind right as you leave your seat.
Tenet (2020)
Christopher Nolan sacrifices character for plot and concept-and nearly succeeds
Non-spoiler.
Stunningly original and woven with sublime intricacy, Christopher Nolan's action-thriller abounds with incredible set-pieces and a delightfully tricky storyline that showcases his skill at creating coherent worlds filled with the wildest of concepts. Cinematographic brilliance from Hoyte van Hoytema and some standout tracks from Ludwig Goransson complete the mystique and wonderfully unique atmosphere and contribute to an undoubtedly technically masterful film.
Tenet is severely lacking in character development, with little emotional engagement that is not generated by the superb portrayals by Pattinson, Washington and Debicki. Character motivations are also veiled and frustratingly shallow and unexplored. Beyond this, the plot suffers from a lack of clarity in the final act, and a general reliance on exposition.
This is a movie that focuses on the power of it's intriguing concepts and it's intricately threaded plot, weaving a remarkably tense and gripping narrative, pulling on Nolan's trademark skill of foreshadowing and set-up to create a film which rewards the viewer for their close attention.
Not for everyone, and by no means his best.
8.7/10 for me as a Nolan fan and lover of puzzle-box plots, objectively would lower that to 8/10.
Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench (2009)
Chazelle and Hurwitz's debut is full of potential and charm, and little else besides
Chazelle's debut feature is a charmingly small-scale one, following the eponymous Guy and Madeline in the aftermath of their breakup. Mixed perfectly with Hurwitz's scoring, the film comes to life in broad shifts of tonal brilliance, exemplified by exceptional scenes such as "Love in the Fall" and "Boy in the Park", where Chazelle shines as a director with a good sense of framing and purpose in his camerawork. Elsewhere, frequent long takes and close-ups build up a distinctly personal style which, accompanied by decent performances from Desiree Garcia and Jason Palmer, helps the audience understand the characters better. Chazelle uses the age-old trope of the two lovers temporarily separated to set-up and underline the film, filling it with seemingly unconnected glimpses of the lives of each one, but through cunning use of sound, thematically and tonally feels united and smoothly transitions these themes from scene to scene.
Despite this, it cannot be said to a good film, crippled as it is by bad storytelling. How did the initial breakup go? Did they part amicably? What did Elena do in the end? Initially, it seemed that it would be a story which focused mostly on character through close-up, personal dialogue and musical moments, except the characters never get their due diligence, and in the end, the emotions don't hit as hard as they should, because the characters have spent too long in an unclear storyline, which although fits the transitions of theme throughout the film, fails completely to stand on its own as a comprehensible story. The main story and much of the dialogue fails to engage the audience fully for the same reason, the lack of proper context in the story, which never fully appears.
At one point, I had thought that Madeline's job at the lobster diner was in NY, because of bad signposting of where the characters were. And Elena's subplot with the old man was definitely better off on the cutting room floor.
All that aside, there is a definite charm, style, and authenticity of storytelling through this thematically strong piece, which seems to waver between sticking to traditional styles and Chazelle's by-now characteristic musical flair. A little more flair throughout would've been appreciated, as would a story which would either be more focused or more complete.
Hurwitz's score throughout was thoroughly enjoyable, and bumps up the rating by a star. The pure charm and delight in the moments of musical flair are capsules of the same magic Chazelle unleashed in La La Land, and the amount of enjoyment I got out of that, and the clear potential which we have seen blossom, gives it another star.
On it's own merits, this is a 5. But to me, it goes to a 7.
If I had one gripe, it would be that Chazelle only showed us Guy and Madeline on a park bench once. Considering it was the title, and the location itself got two songs, I was hoping for more. It would've given a nice focal story point which was otherwise absent.
Artemis Fowl (2020)
"It's a kid's movie" is not a good excuse
Let's make this clear. I'm still a kid. Or at least, I'm not yet a legal adult. More importantly, I love and openly enjoy kids movies every time, movies like Onward, How To Train Your Dragon, Sonic the Hedgehog, Christopher Robin etc. This movie is nothing like the ones I've mentioned above.
This movie is a massive dumpster fire, and that's even before I add in my complaints as a book fan.
First, let's talk the movie without the context of the books. I hate to say this, but Ferdia Shaw is quite unconvincing as an actor, and that's partly down to the rubbish script he was given as much as it is his wooden delivery. Secondly, the plot of this movie is everywhere except coherent. From plot point to plot point it's rushed to be "exciting" when instead it's just barely understandable, a blast of CGI after CGI with no real stakes or drama or proper characters who you even like. It's a mixture of B-movie cliches that takes this admittedly well-made fairy world and makes it entirely forgettable and generic. Humour falls flat just about every time. I'm going to quote Chris Stuckmann, who has not read the books, and who does routinely review movies like the aforementioned Onward and HTTYD, "stunningly bad". Josh Gad's narration was such a bore. The setup of this movie's world is ridiculously generic which results in a severe disinterest in the movie in of itself. The characters are equally boring.
In order to have some touchstone to the book, you hear them say the line that he's a "criminal mastermind". Let's be clear. Artemis spends the movie being a very nonthreatening occasionally smart kid. On no occasion is the criminal angle ever brought up in a meaningful way. You can't have it both ways, this only furthers how atrocious the writing of this movie was.
Let's get into the book argument. The premise of the books was that Artemis Fowl began as a criminal mastermind who did criminal things like blow up boats, kidnap and extort, and who eventually would have a redemption arc. By starting from the opposite direction, the writers have not only failed entirely to adapt the singular unique thing about Artemis Fowl, but also created an even more unconvincing arc than before. As mentioned already, the plot is everywhere and the stakes are artificially thrown everywhere and muddled to make it feel like something is happening.
The reason why the Fowl books were good was also because the plotting was relatively tight and fast-paced. Two different arcs were squished into this 90 minute movie, making the plot incoherent, especially when compared to the original books.
Yes, books will always have differences from movies and that's absolutely fine. But there is no real excuse for the writers. Namely because there are graphic novels of the original books. What does this mean? It means that an entire storyboard already exists. The hardest work is essentially done for you, by showing you a visual format of the plot, so it's easy to decide what you can film and what you can't. To then come up with a generic plot and the most ridiculous character arcs for a series which had good versions of both was stupid.
Finally, let's address the "it's a kids movie" nonsense. Any five year old will enjoy a random mixture of colours and cool-looking creatures. This is NOT an excuse to make a shit movie. It's barely enjoyable, and let's face it, not even interesting enough to get you to consider watching another one. It isn't even as though Disney did families a favour by making this generic entertainment. The original was written for kids. Read by kids. Enjoyed by kids, who usually have a deeper appreciation of things like that than adults give them credit for. It makes zero sense that making Artemis Fowl slowly turn evil is somehow a better character arc for audiences than starting with an already somewhat evil Artemis. The characters don't fit, and anyway Shaw is highly unconvincing at being anything more than a wide-eyed kid with occasional smart moments.
Enough with that nonsense to justify a high score. This is quite objectively still a bad movie. I would say 5/10 material, but the sheer audacity of the writers to destroy the original books so comprehensively despite it literally having received good reception from kids and families for years, makes this much lower.
2/10. Don't overpraise this movie just to spite people who you think are "haters". It doesn't deserve that.
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
A worthy, if slightly flawed, finale to this period of the MCU
Twenty movies of buildup leads to this; a three hour film that retains remarkably coherent and action-packed despite its length, full of fan-pleasing moments and fulfilment of several deserving character arcs. While not particular groundbreaking in any way, it is tightly plotted to keep the movie moving to near-perfection considering the massive ensemble cast and the amount of expectation it bears. Character arcs set up over years reach a climactic payoff that elicit powerful reactions. However, the plot revolves around massive coincidences and don't-think-too-hard gimmicks, while the great character work Thanos received in the previous film is completely undone here.
As it was meant to, it acts as a grand ending to this arc of the MCU. Imperfect, yes, but a worthy signoff for years of hard work.
Spider-Man: Far from Home (2019)
Not quite your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man
Peter Parker returns in an action-filled romp, that, true to formula, stays funny, relatable, but with enough menace to it, although at times it seems to betray its own roots, forgoing the "friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man" for the usual Marvel fare. The stakes are boosted to a new level, something slightly disappointing considering how great Homecoming was by having a "smaller" villain. Tom Holland, Jake Gyllenhaal and Zendaya pull off some great characters, but the amount of spectacle here seems somewhat excessive and Peter's own character doesn't quite grow as well as he could've.
Still, enjoyable, fun, and definitely worth watching.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Nothing more to say...
Dark, complex, haunting, Christopher Nolan has added a classic of complexity and humanity to the superhero genre, buoyed by Heath Ledger's Oscar-winning portrayal of the psychopathic Joker, supported by Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent, this is a film which descends into the dark and returns with absolute brilliance for its efforts.
Captain Marvel (2019)
A big-budget, low-plot outing from Marvel Studios catches the eye with typically excellent action and canned comedy, and little else.
MARVEL'S big budget action flick, meant to catch eyes before the release of "Avengers: Endgame", has just made fans wish "Endgame" would be released earlier. "Captain Marvel" suffers from uncharacteristically stilted writing, from a forgettable, erratically planned plot, to an absolute lack of character development. Let's start with some positives. Marvel's usual formula of bottled humour, canned effects and tinned side characters informs this film, with some degree of success. The film manages to capitalise on Samuel L Jackson's portrayal of a young Nick Fury, who provides some respite from Brie Larson's almost one dimensional performance.
"Captain Marvel" lives up to its name, providing scene after scene of dynamic, eye-catching action, with Marvel's VFX teams providing another masterclass in superhuman powers. Brie Larson's Carol Danvers is at the very least likable and she does a passable job in this film to bring Danvers to life, held back, however, by a substandard script. Well-choreographed and slickly shot action sequences, tinged with slightly excessive CGI to double up the effects of watching a Marvel film, "Marvel" at the very least is enjoyable in its action, which is well done. The presence of too much CGI again presents the problem, how much is too unbelievable? The producers had no such questions, as CGI ran rampant throughout the film, to disorientating and sometimes distractingly bad. The main flaws in the film are instead, however, in its underdeveloped plot. "Marvel"s plot line is relatively simple, skipping over plot points quickly in favour of more action sequences.
The film provides cliches instead of characters, with the majority of the characters trotting out lines with no real impact or persuasiveness. Plot-wise, "Marvel" is standard Marvel fare, a forgettable plot with throwaway villains and badly handled back-and-forth "mystery" of who was the villain. In terms of writing, Danvers gets no real character development, with internal conflicts and relationships quickly formed and glossed over entirely, making her an uncompelling hero. More so when Danvers' only true struggle, against the Intelligence, is overcome by gaining more power, not through guile or intelligence. This makes her seem like nothing more than her powers, and really, that's exactly what it feels like when she blasts Jude Law in the chest instead of accepting his fight. Sure, it's a decent laugh, but drains the movie of all tension, since now she can just blast stuff.
For all that power, Captain Marvel sacrifices any real stakes. She has to retrieve a power source she barely remembers, against a group of Kree who are easily blown to bits. The movie just doesn't feel tense, with pop punk soundtracks and quips erratically placed, breaking the rhythm altogether. Much more should have been made of Danvers' memory loss, instead of turning flashbacks into exposition dumps. Overall a standard, bland but still entertaining film, "Marvel" successfully sets up a promising character for future films, despite its many flaws.
The Flash: We Are the Flash (2018)
Decent finale to a mediocre season
Just a little better than a usual filler episode of this season. Faster, more exciting, but the plot was resolved in a relatively mediocre and forgettable manner, DeVoe loses in a relatively okay manner, but it was pretty predictable and the stakes felt so low there was no tension. Final villain is defeated but it triggers a bigger incident that sets up season 2? What is this, the S1 finale? No, it really isn't.
Season as a whole was really slow paced and really mediocre writing wise. It also had the worst 2 episodes ever "Girls Night Out" and "Run, Iris, Run", but the rest of the season's pure mediocrity averages this out.
I'd still give the season as a whole 6/10. Not bad, but not good either.
The Flash: Enter Flashtime (2018)
Brilliant premise undercuts half the show for entertainment
Taken on face value alone, this episode is of the highest quality, using the Flash's speed and powers to the max, along with finally giving us a good speedster teamup episode. The execution was at times the best the show has ever been, the tension and stakes kept high...except, of course, that this is a standalone concept episode that has no bearing on the plot itself. Thus, you already can predict the general plotline.
Also, as people pointed out, if Barry was this fast, then he'd be virtually unstoppable. The Thinker wouldn't even be able to get a thought out in time to stop him if this was his speed level. That's the problem, which means that the premise thar made this episode so great is also its greatest weakness.
Ultimately my enjoyment outweighs my disbelief, and I can forgive the one-off rule-breaking for an otherwise brilliant episode in a dull season.
The Flash: Girls Night Out (2017)
Nearly unwatchable
The plot of this episode is utterly forgettable, and totally yawn-inducing. More importantly, one cannot get 1 minute in without cringing all the way to another planet. None of these characters were convincing, they all felt like caricatures of what the writers thought were "strong female figures". Dialogue was cringe, so cringe I really cannot emphasize how bad it was to keep watching when the female characters are cracking the worst one liners in history.
This season didn't need a filler episode at all, it just slowed down the season and made this season worse than it already was.
So bad. So, so bad. If people didn't like these characters before, they surely hate them now. If anyone has not seen this episode yet, skip it. You will miss nothing.
I have nothing against the message, but to push this agenda so obviously, so badly, and not even a really impressive message either. It just boiled down to "women strong grr" levels of message. And there's no entertainment factor, is just terrible writing. Acting was unconvincing too.
Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)
Rian Johnson sets his targets far too high
Firstly, let's address something. Why so many critics and certain fans consider this movie to be good is due to 2 reasons.
1. The movie goes out of it's way to subvert every possible expectation
2. The movie is filled with themes and ideas about ambiguity and reality which are interesting and powerful.
Here's my reply to those critics.
1. There's a proper way to subvert expectations. Luke throwing his lightsaber away and refusing to come out of exile? Good subverting of expectations. Rey's parents are nobodies? Good subverting of expectations. Snoke dies anticlimactically? Bad subverting of expectations. Luke and Kylo's backstory? Bad subverting of expectations. It doesn't matter how "thematically relevant" the subverting of expectations is, it has to be justified. Even moments like the reveal of Rey's parentage, which is a good subverting of expectations, is bogged down and has no impact because of her portrayal as the greatest Force-user since Luke.
When you pull a twist, it has to make sense, there has to be some kind of set-up which rewards a narrative twist. Johnson does none of this. He pulls twist after twist on our characters, trying to explore the complexity of them, only to realise that he can't form a proper explanation or even a single moment of set-up to justify his twists.
If a movie's twists are just for the sake of surprising the audience, it's a bad movie. We can take twists. Vader was Luke's father. What a twist! Leia was Luke's sister all along. Not so good, but still believable. Han Solo changes from his money-driven scoundrel to come back and help save Luke at the end of the original film. That was a justified twist, because we've spent time with Han getting to know that he has morals, even with his greed. Johnson justifies nothing, and simply hopes that our shock will suspend our disbelief enough for his next "twist".
2. Yes, I will agree that Johnson is aiming for themes that aren't just powerful, but universal: anyone can be a hero, heroes can lose hope, sacrifice, freedom should be universal, the world isn't always black and white. But that's just it. All Johnson has is wonderful themes, which he brings up occasionally, explores shallowly, then discards and keeps moving. It's as though he thinks that by simply bringing up these themes he has made the movie greater.
No. No to all the critics who smugly point at these themes and claim that since it uses more interesting themes than the other SW films, then it must be better. Because Rian Johnson never explores these themes in a way that truly engages the audience. Luke has descended from his heroism and fallen from grace. Excellent! So much potential has opened up! And then he and Rey interact in no manner that sparks any development in his character. Yoda's ghost has to come in and try to push Luke's arc forwards, by urging him to let go of the past. Let's recall, why is this not effective? Because of context. Because we've seen Luke devastated already, when he lost his hand and had to deal with the life-changing realisation that the monster who laid waste to countless star systems was, in fact, his father, that his beloved mentor Ben Kenobi had lied to him. So when they expect us to believe that Luke never went after Ben Solo, who simply retreated into exile without a whimper, you can see the disparity. Johnson doesn't give us a believable fall because in the story of Luke's fall, Luke is entirely passive.
Give him something to do! Let Luke chase Ben Solo, and witness his nephew's fall to the dark side. Let him experience the death of his old friend Han Solo, have that drive Luke further away into himself, and give Rey more to do than chase Luke around begging. Make Luke's fall believable, and his redemption will be all the more powerful, and the theme will emerge more powerfully. Instead, what we get is a lacklustre imagining of the character, depending again (Johnson again does this) on your suspension of disbelief.
I could go on and on about how the countless other themes and ideas that Johnson introduced fell short of their intended purposes, because they did. It's not good enough for a movie to have a good message or interesting themes. It has to tell a good story. More so in this movie. Rian Johnson doesn't seem to understand that we've already seen 4 movies starring Luke Skywalker. We know his character. Rian Johnson needed to continue that story of Luke Skywalker in a way that fit the character, and at the same time include these rich themes.
The Fundamental Problem With The Last Jedi's Deeper Messages
Rian Johnson tries for too much, and in order to fit it all in, his plot and characterisation are sacrificed. If only he'd decided to focus on a few main themes (loss of hope, redemption, sacrifice, moral ambiguity), and not tried to shoehorn in literally every other theme he could think of, and took the time to explore those ideas fully, we'd get several fully fulfilled themes in a tighter, cohesive movie where the characters experience change that feels natural. Instead he spreads it out, and none of the themes are developed properly, character arcs are forced into motion for the sake of the theme, and Johnson generates plotholes so large we can't help but notice them.
If we go back to Johnson's utter disregard for the other films, it's because he violates the internal logic of the universe which angers fans. A lightspeed charge? That tactic, if possible, would've been invented years ago, and whichever side had more lightspeed equipped, droid-piloted freighters would win, which is why hyperspace exists. Why do we find it so hard to accept rey's ancestry? Because of how powerful she is. Rey is on a Ben Solo level, and pretty damn close to Luke, too. Ben Solo and Luke are direct descendants of the Chosen One, the single most powerful Force-user to be born, who was leaps beyond even Yoda and Palpatine. Luke and Ben are only slightly below their father and grandfather respectively. So when you push Rey's power level that high so consistently, then she must've some powerful blood, right? Wrong. She's a nobody, and that's good, as long as (1) we see her work for her power and skill we don't] or (2) It's made clear that although she is strong, she's not the strongest ["I haven't seen such power since..." Johnson has Luke say, implying her power is on a ridiculous level].
It simply doesn't make sense, either, that a Sith Lord (or whatever Snoke is) would be unable to put up a fight. It's anticlimactic, and when Rey and Kylo Ren fight the guards in the throne room, you don't cheer for Rey because she hasn't earned it. Luke earned his victory over Vader in Return of the Jedi by losing badly to Vader in Empire Strikes Back, and then coming back with a rebuilt lightsaber. Rey has done nothing but win, win, win. Her torture in Force Awakens gave her the narrative power to beat Kylo Ren in a great fight in the snow. In the Last Jedi, we're supposed to simply accept that she's better now because she went down a hole and stared in a mirror, when Luke had to fight "Vader" in the caves of Dagobah, only to lose. Simply put, the internal logic just isn't there. Snoke's death wasn't earned, it was just another example of Rian Johnson thinking as long as he subverts expectations he's a smart writer. Rey's win over Kylo Ren wasn't earned either.
This Movie Is Still Occasionally Enjoyable
However, I won't deny the great parts in this movie, when occasionally Rian Johnson hits the marks he wanted to hit. The cinematography and effects are astounding and wonderful to watch. The beginning is a brilliantly tense and action-packed battle, which later devolves into a tenseless, boring chase. Johnson really hits on what the Force means when Luke first teaches Rey how to feel the Force, then ruins it by having Rey slice a rock and pretend that it was impressive. Johnson shoots an excellently choreographed action sequence in the throne room, but as explained before, it only highlights his narrative failure to make this scene fit with the characters we know (Mary Sue mode is on full here). Johnson gives Luke a cool sendoff, but could've made Luke's power more substantial, given that he is the strongest Force-user in the galaxy. But that's a nitpick, and I acknowledge that. Rian Johnson's concept of the connection between Rey and Kylo Ren were by far the standout moments of the film, allowing Ridley and Driver to shine, and provide an interesting look into each other's lives. The theme of moral ambiguity explored between these two characters is the only one that is truly impactful. This resulted in what is basically the only narrative payoff, which was Kylo Ren offering his hand to Rey. Of course, Rey refuses, and has an again limp "I am a Jedi, like my father before me"-ish moment because of how badly her character was developed. Best of all, Johnson's shot of the Force-sensitive slave child towards the end. That was a wonderful scene, which doesn't forgive the pace-destroying, mind-numbingly stupid Rose and Finn subplot. There could've been far better ways to reach that conclusion than through a forced subplot.
All in all, Rian Johnson's thematically bold, subversion-obsessed movie shoots for the stars, but ends up hanging limply in orbit instead, while trying to reach those lofty heights he greatly compromised plot and character arcs, although superb visuals, subtle and sometimes excellent acting, and the occasional brilliant scene stop this movie from crashing all the way down.
Normally I'd give this 4/10, but the reviews on this site seem so rigged, and critics so determined to mark all who disliked this film as "trolls" and "haters", that I'm subtracting a star.
3/10 it is, Johnson. And for the record, I liked The Force Awakens and prefer Rise of Skywalker to Last Jedi. At least Abrams tried.
Dunkirk (2017)
An impactful, immersive experience.
Dunkirk was Christopher Nolan's latest film, which I had the pleasure of watching last week. Dunkirk tells the story of 400 000 men trapped, awaiting evacuation.
What the film felt like for me, was an immediately immersive experience. Nolan places us straight into the action as we are plunged into the city of Dunkirk with Tommy and his mates.Immediately, from the very beginning, you could feel the tension begin to build as the soldiers find themselves in an abandoned city. Where is everyone? Then the leaflets come down, and then we see their plight. Surrounded. On all sides. Then the shooting begins, and Nolan cleverly makes the decision to not show the Germans, instead having us watch Tommy leap and vault away, eventually reaching the beach. With no portrayal of the German soldiers, Nolan is placing us, effectively, in Tommy's point of view, where all he really knows is someone is shooting at him, and he needs to run. And we do feel Tommy's desperation as his friends are cut down, and he vaults and drops his gun because they just keep coming and-
And then he reaches the beach.
All those men, just standing there. Already the tension from the chase is slowly fading. But Zimmer's excellent soundtrack begins to rebuild that tension, as the ominous sounds build up to the bomber strike. Everything feels like we are there, with them, being bombed, running from enemies we can't really make out. This movie delivered a powerfully drawn story of survival, even when interlocked with the story of the courage of the sailors like Dawson who sail out to sea of their own volition. Dunkirk works because it seems real. We are given probably as much information as Tommy has. It feels real, and their actions feel completely valid, think of the soldier screaming for "the bloody air force!" It feels impacting because we have just witnessed the destruction wrought by the Luftwaffe, and where were the air force? The lack of dialogue feels natural, as Tommy has just had all his friends killed in an ambush, and then witnessed the great British Army trapped and desperate. We can feel the desperation, the longing of the soldiers, because as they point out, it's just right there now, they can see it, just barely out of their grasp. Home. Safety.
I want to explain for a second why the characters can be developed without dialogue. What we are meant to feel for these soldiers is empathy. Because all they want to do is two main things. One:Live. Two: Go home If you can't empathize with that, then, well, could you empathize with 9/11 victims? Did you feel for them? Unless you're a sociopath, of course! Did you need dialogue? Backstories? No. Because they are ordinary people, trapped in a disastrous event, facing death and injury when home and safety is oh so close. And that is exactly what every soldier in Dunkirk faces. Finally, I would like to mention the beautiful, powerful cinematography, whether the explosions on the destroyer to the tension of the aerial battle. I would just like to note here: Hardy shooting down the last dive bomber is completely possible. Nolan researched every part of the movie. The plot's structure is slightly strange, and off- putting at certain times, yes. But it allows Nolan to advance all the stories equally, and maintain the tension at high stakes. Especially in the Sea plot line, where all three lines intersect. George's death, Peter lying to the Soldier. When it all comes together, the bomber coming back around. And then you realize that Hardy has already shot the plane down, but now you see what the effect of that is from another point of view. And it allows Nolan to unite all 3 lines for a singular, powerful ending.
This is why Dunkirk works. This is why Dunkirk is truly stunning, moving and full of tension, at all times, with Nolan and Hoytema's cinematography leaping to stunning life, and Zimmer's tension-filled score in the background.
I have a new favorite war film. Thank you, Mr. Nolan.
9.6/10