|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Sept 1, 2019 21:34:27 GMT
My review Men In Black International Men in Black International was a movie I was cautiously optimistic about. The idea of making a Men in Black movie and not having the iconic duo of Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith seemed like a disaster. With that said, Tessa Thompson and Chris Hemsworth were the leads, and they seemed to be a good pairing, especially as the two have worked together before. Additionally, the movie has Liam Neeson, Rebecca Ferguson and more. On top of that, at least it was expanding on the Men in Black universe instead of flat out being a remake/reboot of the original movie. Even though the trailers looked a little generic and familiar, I was willing to give it a chance. Men in Black International is one of those movies that’s incredibly just above average in just about every aspect. There’s not a lot here that’s actually bad, but there’s not a lot here that’s good either. The plot is reasonably easy to follow but you’re not really invested in it, or its characters despite their performances. It doesn’t even necessarily feel like a Men in Black movie, more like a modern blockbuster with a Men in Black skin. Much of the writing and especially the humour certainly feels like it’s from a passable sci-fi flick released today. As for the humour, it isn’t embarrassingly bad, but more often than not it misses than actually hits. It starts off a little rough too, jumping back a couple years for a scene with Chris Hemsworth and Liam Neeson, jumping back even further with Tessa Thompson’s character as a child, before then jumping back to the present. Then there’s the whole bit about Thompson finding the MIB and somehow convincing them to make her an agent which I didn’t completely buy. After that point the movie picks up a little. There’s also a twist that happened, and somehow I managed to figure it out months ago before learning that the movie actually had a twist at all. By the time the first act is over, it’s incredibly obvious what it is, it’s honestly kind of embarrassing how easy it is to figure it out. It’s not necessarily a major issue, but it goes to show how familiar the plot is. In terms of what it actually adds to the Men in Black universe, it’s in a new setting, and I guess you get some new gadgets/weapons in a couple scenes. However, it honestly feels like they did the bare minimum with the plot, kind of a wasted opportunity. Tessa Thompson and Chris Hemsworth are the leads, and while they don’t rival Smith and Jones they are charismatic and likable, and among the better aspects of the movie. They really end up carrying much of the movie. Other cast members like Kumail Nanjiani (voicing an alien), Liam Neeson, Emma Thompson (reprising her role from the last movie), Rafe Spall and Rebecca Ferguson do alright in their roles. The villains aren’t really bad but nothing memorable either. Also I should probably mention that there’s no cameo from Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, so don’t wait through the credits expecting a scene with them, because that doesn’t happen. After the opening credits and the movie starts, you can definitely tell this movie was not made by original Men in Black director Barry Sonnefeld. International is directed more as a much more modern and conventional action movie. F. Gary Gray directed The Italian Job remake, Law Abiding Citizen, Straight Outta Compton and The Fate of the Furious, and now it’s him who’s directing this movie. He’s a pretty good director and to be fair his work on Men in Black International isn’t necessarily bad, but it lacks style and personality. The visual effects are pretty good, again typical blockbuster effects but better than those in the previous movies. The alien designs are fine but at the same time they’re a little basic. There’s very little that’s impressive, just reasonably competent. Men in Black International is just okay. Tessa Thompson, Chris Hemsworth and the rest of the cast are pretty good, and the visual effects and action is decent, but outside of that there’s not much to really say about the movie. The plot is fine, the direction is fine, it’s competently made, it’s rather forgettable, and there are very little surprises. It’s a reasonably entertaining 2 hours of your time but nothing more than that. If you’re a fan of the movies, then maybe it’s worth a watch, but don’t expect a lot going in. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2019/09/02/men-in-black-international-2019-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Sept 4, 2019 21:28:46 GMT
I made a list of my ranking of Quentin Tarantino's movies
1. The Hateful Eight 2. Inglourious Basterds 3. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood 4. Django Unchained. 5. Pulp Fiction 6. Reservoir Dogs 7. Kill Bill Vol. 2 8. Jackie Brown 9. Kill Bill Vol. 1 10. Death Proof
I go into more depth with my choices here: thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2019/09/05/quentin-tarantino-films-ranked/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Sept 7, 2019 21:14:11 GMT
My review of It Chapter Two
It Chapter Two was one of my most anticipated movies of 2019. The first It was quite good, and from what I can tell adapted part of Stephen King’s classic novel to the big screen rather faithfully. However, that movie only told half of the story, whether it still worked depended on the second half. With the same team returning, and the likes of James McAvoy and Jessica Chastain as part of the older cast, I was looking forward to it. It’s ambitious, very well directed, the cast was great, and a satisfying conclusion to the It story.
I’d advise people who are seeing It Chapter Two to watch the first movie somewhat recently beforehand, it’s best going into the movie with Chapter One fresh in your mind. As for people who haven’t seen the first movie at all, Chapter Two is not a movie you can just go into without seeing the first, you’ll be completely lost. There is a long period in the first half that’s necessary to the story and characters but I’m not sure it works as well as it should’ve. It’s mainly consisting of the main characters going back to places they’ve been to as children and remembering certain things. There’s a purpose for doing this with all the characters, however the problem is that for the most part all the scenes follow the same structure: the adult character goes to that familiar place, have a flashback which usually ends in an encounter with Pennywise, and then in present day coming across Pennywise themselves. These scenes are necessary for the plot, it’s just that it felt a little too repetitive. I heard something along the lines that there’d be a version which put the two movies together, placing the scenes in chronological order and that should be interesting. Despite all the things about what I just said and some of the scenes meandering a bit, I was really invested with the movie and the characters, even more so than the first movie. This movie is really ambitious to cover it all in one movie, and most of it works. All the build up in the first two acts really pays off, as the third act is fantastic, won’t go into depth with that here. There are some changes from the books, some of it was shot and removed, others didn’t make it to being filmed. For example, there are subplots like with Beverly’s husband and Bill’s wife that were in the book but not in the movie, I haven’t read the book but I think that it was a good call not to feature them in the movie. Last thing to note, as people have no doubt seen and sometimes complained about, this movie is almost 3 hours long. Considering that the book is 1000 pages long, it’s not really too surprising that it’s this long. If you’re invested in the story, that won’t be a problem for you because it wasn’t a problem for me. Looking back on everything, I’m not sure what exactly I’d cut from the movie, there’s a lot here that’s necessary for the story, even if some of it could’ve been handled differently. Besides, I’d much rather a lengthy movie that takes its time with its story, then a 2 hour 20 minute (studio mandated) version that feels really cut down. Some people have asked whether splitting it into 2 parts was necessary, and looking at everything I’d definitely say yes.
The cast is all around great, with James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain, Bill Hader, Isaiah Mustafa, Jay Ryan, James Ransone and Andy Bean playing the older versions of the Loser’s Club from the first movie. They actually seemed like older versions of the younger cast (James Ransone particularly seems like an older Jack Dylan Grazer), and when it comes to casting adult versions of child actors, this is one of the best examples I’ve seen in movies. I generally liked what they did with the characters. I also liked what they did with Mike’s (Isaiah Mustafa) character, from what I can tell he really didn’t get to do much in the book, here they gave him more to work with, with him being the only one who stayed in Derry and really the one out of the group who knows the most about Pennywise and what they might need to do in order to kill him. Ever since the movie started being shown, there has been particular praise going towards Bill Hader, and for very good reason. He not only delivers a lot of the funniest moments of the movie, he also delivers some of the more emotional scenes of the movie. I admit I’m not familiar with much of his work (no I haven’t seen Barry yet) but after seeing him here, I really want to check them out. You also see the younger cast appear often in flashbacks, and as usual they are very good in their roles. You don’t see as much of Pennywise, or at least compared to the amount in the first movie, but Bill Skarsgård is great in his scenes. Unfortunately yet again they do tend to overuse the amount of CGI on him, even though there are parts that are absolutely necessary to use those effects, Skarsgård is more effective and scary when he’s just acting on his own without all that. Nonetheless, him and director Andy Muschietti has completely redefined Pennywise and they’ve done a great job at bringing him to the big screen. There are also a couple of cameos worth keeping your eye peeled for.
Andi Muschietti returned to direct, and he’s done a really good job yet again. It really looks great, the town of Derry even in the 2010s still really feels uneasy. If you didn’t find the first movie scary, you probably won’t be scared by the second. I don’t go into horror movies judging them by their scare factors, because usually I’m not scared by horror movies. With that said, there are some scares here that are quite predictable and done like plenty of other horror movies have done, for example the classic ‘character looks at a room when they think there’s danger and see nothing, and when they turn around there’s something scary right up in their (and the audience’s) face’ is present multiple times. I do appreciate how graphic and disturbing Muschietti is willing to take this, he really does not hold back in the darker and twisted aspects. The CGI for the most part is good but some of the larger effects are a little too cartoonish and silly at times. Benjamin Wallfisch also returns to provide the score for the sequel and it’s once again effective and elevates the movie even further.
Looking at the reactions, it seems that that It Chapter Two won’t work for everyone perfectly. Despite some of the messiness and some of the issues I have, I do like Chapter Two more than Chapter One. Although I haven’t read the book, I know about it, and I saw the miniseries, which really didn’t work. With these two movies it’s an achievement in itself that they managed to pull this off, and them being as good as they are is. Considering the amount of content that Stephen King packed into that one book (and some of the weirdness that was understandably cut from it in the movies), I think this is probably as good as an adaptation of the book as we’ll probably get. If you weren’t a fan of the first movie, I’m not sure that you’ll like the second. If you like the first movie at all however, I do think it’s at least worth checking out Chapter Two, otherwise you’ve really only seen one half of the story.
thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2019/09/08/it-chapter-two-2019-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Sept 10, 2019 20:37:41 GMT
My review of The Dead Don't Die
The Dead Don’t Die is a movie I heard a little bit about for a month or so. I knew that it was a zombie movie that was anticipated but people felt rather mixed on when it released. It’s also got a great cast, with the likes of Adam Driver, Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton and more involved. It’s also the first movie that I’ve seen from director Jim Jarmusch, whose other films included Paterson and Only Lovers Left Alive (movies I’ve heard about but never got around to). Having only seen The Dead Don’t Die, I’m just going to assume that this is his worst movie.
All I knew going into this movie is that this was a zombie comedy, I was going in completely blind otherwise and so had no other expectations. This movie certainly has some weird humour throughout. I really do like deadpan humour, but I never knew it was possible for a movie to be too deadpan, to the point where the humour just completely disappears from them movie. I assume it’s somewhat trying to be comedic however, because if you look at the movie from a serious perspective, it’s even worse. So outside of some certain moments, it was neither serious nor funny, so I’m not exactly sure how to take most of the movie. The horror doesn’t even exist here, the few times that have some attempt at it are very weak. So you’d think that maybe it’s meant to be working on a deeper level with the story. Well there is some social commentary that the movie throws in throughout about materialism and the like, and it is incredibly ham fisted and blatant, none of that works either. So really the movie doesn’t work in any regard, not as a comedy, not as a horror, and it’s not a deep movie with important things to say about anything.
Despite the great cast, they can only do so much. Adam Driver, Bill Murray and Tilda Swinton come across the best here, with Driver and Murray as a pair of cops, and Swinton as an undertaker who also happens to be a samurai (or something). Driver actually does manages to elevate some of the scenes he’s in, with so many of his deadpan delivered lines being amongst the only funny parts of the movie. The rest of the cast don’t really do much, with Steve Buscemi, Austin Butler, Danny Glover, Caleb Landry Jones, Selena Gomez and Tom Waits being okay in their parts but but weren’t particularly memorable.
As I said up above, the movie barely has any horror, honestly Shaun of the Dead is much scarier. If you’re hoping to enjoy it for the gore at least, there’s maybe a few scenes like that but on the whole there isn’t much here. An observation is that for whatever reason, whenever part of a zombie is chopped off or shot, soot or dust comes out instead of blood, I’m not sure whether it’s an artistic decision or because of budgetary reasons but it’s like that in the movie.
By the end of The Dead Don’t Die, I wasn’t exactly sure what the point of all of it was. The jokes don’t land, the scares don’t work, the movie doesn’t entertain, and even if you just go by the message/social commentary, it’s so forced and poorly handled that it deflates the movie even further. I didn’t hate it, but it really gets worse the more I think about it, as it really doesn’t work well in any regard. Not even the cast can fully save it (though Adam Driver has some good moments). I guess if you’re really excited for the movie I guess you could give it a go. It’s harmless but rather forgettable and a bit of a timewaster, so if you’re sceptical about the movie, I’d say it’s not worth it.
3/10
thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2019/09/11/the-dead-dont-die-2019-review/
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Sept 13, 2019 21:39:21 GMT
My review of Cold Pursuit
Liam Neeson ever since 2008’s Taken has starred in a bunch of revenge thrillers, so one could be forgiven for completely blanking on this year’s Cold Pursuit as just being more of the same, albeit set in the snow. That or it is just remembered as that one movie where Neeson said some things on a press tour that got him into some hot water to say the least. I was meaning to check it out earlier but missed it at the cinemas, so checked it out more recently. Cold Pursuit has its issues but its pretty entertaining overall.
It’s around 90 minutes long and for the most part it’s paced reasonably well. It starts off like you’d expect it to, it shows Liam Neeson in his normal life, tragedy strikes with his son being killed, and then he goes on his path of revenge. The second act is when you really notice something strange about the tone of the movie. As previously mentioned, this is a dark comedy and is very offbeat throughout, and you should probably know that going in or the experience is going to be a little surprising to say the least. You think that it would mainly focus on Liam Neeson, and while he is very prominent, it also focuses on two other groups of characters, one led by the main antagonist Viking, and the other being another crime group who would come into conflict with Viking. Personally I liked how they handled it, mostly because in the third act everything comes together to really work to hilarious effect (no spoilers). However the second act is a little stretched out, even if the runtime of the movie is shorter, and I would’ve liked to have seen more of Neeson, he needed to be in the movie a little more (particularly in the second act).
It really feels like Liam Neeson was cast in the lead role for a reason given his typical lead revenge roles, and he’s effortlessly good as expected. This time however, this isn’t a Liam Neeson with a particular set of skills, just a normal guy who is out for revenge. Tom Bateman plays the drug lord and the main antagonist of the movie. He’s crazy and unhinged but he’s mostly used for comedy, as he doesn’t really do anything till like the third act. He’s just so over the top but in the right kind of way, he’s deliberately not meant to be taken seriously. Most of the rest of the cast is fine as well. There is a subplot following a couple cops played by Emmy Rossum and John Doman, and while the two are okay in their roles, their parts didn’t really amount to anything. It’s almost like they’re in the movie to show that police exist in this town but they basically contribute nothing to the plot. The worst treatment of a character/actor is definitely with Laura Dern as Neeson’s wife. It’s actually kind of ridiculous, she appears for scenes before and after her son’s death, and then they just disappear and aren’t mentioned or seen ever again. I heard that apparently it was like that with the original movie, but then I wish the director then would’ve improved the role instead of keeping it the same.
Turns out that this movie is actually an English language remake of In Order of Disappearance, a film also made by the same director, Hans Petter Moland. He really does place you in the snowy location very well. His direction is especially great when it comes to the comedy. For example, every time someone dies, a title card comes up with the name of the person who was just killed. A lot of the time this is used for some really great comedy. The action itself when it actually happenss is quite good, however don’t expect the amount of action in some of Neeson’s other flicks like Taken.
Cold Pursuit isn’t anything special but it’s a fun movie. Liam Neeson and the cast worked well (although Laura Dern and Emmy Rossum weren’t given the best things to work with), and the writing and overall direction made it work as a dark comedy. It’s definitely not a conventional Neeson thriller and despite its issues, I’d say that it’s worth a watch.
thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2019/09/14/cold-pursuit-2019-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Sept 16, 2019 0:00:46 GMT
My review of Night Hunter I knew about this movie for a little while, even back when it was originally called Nomis (before it was changed to the more generic title of Night Hunter). It looked like a standard thriller, but it was the cast that had me interested, with the likes of Henry Cavill, Ben Kingsley, Brendan Fletcher and more involved. Even though I heard some mixed/negative things about this movie, I wanted to check it out for myself. It indeed is a rather generic and average serial killer thriller, with some decent performances making it relatively watchable. Night Hunter is aiming to be one of those serial killer thrillers like Se7en and Silence of the Lambs, but instead just end up having the standard clichés and tropes that a lot of other imitators have in their movies. That includes the roles from Cavill’s super serious cop to Kingsley’s vigilante. So much happens early in the movie (mainly the first 15 minutes) and it really feels too much and rushed. Then it suddenly slows down to a crawling pace after the first encounter with the serial killer character. The movie is an hour and 40 minutes and doesn’t necessarily feel too long, but it definitely stretches out some sections of the plot for too long. The most ridiculous side of the movie is the use of futuristic technologies, from high level tracking devices to hackers who quickly type on a keyboard and say “I’m in”. If you read a summary of the plot it doesn’t sound so bad, but in the movie itself they really fail to make it interesting. At some point there’s an attempt to find what makes this killer tick, but it doesn’t last very long. Night Hunter is quite procedural and you don’t really feel anything throughout, despite a couple of okay twists. It oddly enough manages to be a little too complicated and convoluted, and it really didn’t need to be. The third act isn’t even really that satisfying, it just sort of ends and that’s it. As I said earlier, they’ve got a good cast here, but they don’t deliver their finest work. Henry Cavill is the lead as the police lieutenant, and he is good, probably the strongest of the cast. His character is a pretty familiar cop character, but Cavill manages to elevate the role just a little bit. The rest of the cast is mainly a mixed bag. I’ve not seen much of Alexandra Daddario in other movies for me to say that she’s a great actor, but she’s been better in other movies, it’s hard to buy her in this role. Though to be fair to her, despite her character featuring quite prominently in the plot, she’s given practically nothing to do for the most part. Ben Kingsley has his own plotline, with him and Eliana Jones (as his adopted daughter) as vigilantes hunting down sexual predators, and although that aspect makes the early section of the movie feel overstuffed, it at least provided a somewhat interesting angle for the story instead of just feeling like a standard cop finding serial killer movie. With that said, you’d think with the way they are set up in the first half that they will play a major role in the movie. In a sense they do play a part in the second half but not has much as you’d think, and by the end they mostly just feel like setup for the serial killer to be encountered by the rest of the characters. There are other actors like Stanley Tucci who are also decent enough, but some cast members like Minka Kelly and Nathan Fillion are more background characters, and honestly could’ve been played by anyone. Brendan Fletcher as the serial killer had me interested, his performance in the Uwe Boll directed Rampage trilogy was the saving grace of them, and he was legitimately great in them. Here his performance here is a bit odd to say the least. I know that people who have seen this movie are a little split about how they feel about him. He is very over the top but he does convey the craziness of the character quite well. With that said the character has DID, let’s just say that it’s not a good or respectful portrayal of people with that condition. It certainly wasn’t the best choice for the character or the movie. When Fletcher does get more serious and less goofy with his performance, he’s a lot more effective, so removing the whole mental condition aspect would’ve made the movie and character much better. I believe this is David Raymond’s first movie, and for a directorial debut it’s not bad. With that said, it does seem like at many points he’s trying to imitate some classic thrillers with his direction, much like with the story. The music is trying really hard as well, being overly intense when the movie really wants you to be tense, but it’s so heavy-handed that it’s more distracting than anything. The direction isn’t bad, just pretty standard. Night Hunter may have a great cast mostly giving okay performances, but it’s not really worth watching it for them. The story is pretty familiar and nothing special, the direction is just okay, and overall it’s a standard thriller that isn’t particularly engaging. If you have an hour and 40 minutes to spare and are genuinely curious about it, then I guess it might be worth checking out. It’s not as bad as what I’ve heard from other people, but it’s really just okay at best. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2019/09/16/night-hunter-2019-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Sept 18, 2019 21:06:04 GMT
My review of Annabelle Comes Home I was curious to watch Annabelle Comes Home, as someone who likes most of the Conjuring-verse movies, I just missed it at the cinemas (there’s also The Curse of La Llorona that I missed, which I didn’t even know was a Conjuring-verse movie). Although I heard that the first Annabelle wasn’t that good, I liked Annabelle Creation quite a bit, and hearing that Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson were returning to play their Conjuring characters had me interested to say the least. The actual movie isn’t really anything special, but I had some fun with it. Timeline wise, Annabelle Comes Home takes place a year after the first Conjuring. With that said, it’s not really a Conjuring movie, in that the Warrens only appear for a few scenes in the movie and a few other characters are the focus of the story. The plot is that Annabelle is let out and the plot goes just exactly how you expect it to. The movie is thankfully not too long at an hour and 46 minutes long. However, it takes half of the movie for Annabelle to start wrecking havoc, so it takes a while for the plot to really kick in. It’s a generally standard horror movie, but I went along with where the plot was going and didn’t have too many complaints outside of the familiarity. Usually the thing about horror movies is that it has multiple fake out endings, but when the climax ended, it oddly felt like it needed to be longer, almost like it was a little rushed. For those interested, there are some links to the rest of the Conjuring-verse, but I won’t get into it here. One of the things that had my most excited for this movie was the fact that Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson would be reprising their roles of Lorraine and Ed Warren. Unfortunately as I said earlier, they are basically cameos in the movie, seen mainly at the beginning and the end of the movie, so if you’re expecting to see a lot of them, you’re going to be disappointed. Whenever they’re on screen however, they’re working at their A game as if they are in a Conjuring movie, and their scenes are among the best parts of the movie. Of the main characters, Mckenna Grace is the standout as the Warrens’ daughter, she was really good here. There’s also the babysitter played by Madison Iseman, and her friend played by Katie Sarife, both of them aren’t that great but they’re fine. The movie does have some typical horror movie dumb decisions being made, particularly by one character. You might’ve seen this from the trailer but Sarife’s character essentially causes the events of Annabelle Comes Home to happen in the first place. To the movie’s credit however, they do at least try to explain them with a backstory for her. Annabelle Comes Home didn’t even come close to being scary, and usually you can predict when or where a jumpscare is going to happen. However Gary Dauberman has directed it quite well, pretty good for his debut movie, it’s very well shot. The movie is set inside the house of the Warrens and that was a simple but effective setting for the movie. While most of the movie looks good, and there are some great horror imagery (although not particularly scary), there are a couple points when the movie uses some CGI. Without saying what it’s used for, sometimes it came across as being really goofy, and was hard to take seriously. Annabelle Comes Home is a pretty typical horror movie with not many (if any) surprises, probably one of the weaker movies in the Conjuring-verse (but better than The Nun). However it’s directed pretty well, and it’s entertaining for what it is. If you like most of the other movies in the series, I’d say that it’s worth watching. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2019/09/19/annabelle-comes-home-2019-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Sept 21, 2019 21:46:22 GMT
My review of The Wandering Earth I heard about The Wandering Earth for a little while, mainly about it being one of China’s all time biggest movies. Aside from that, all I knew about it was that it involved science fiction. It was briefly shown at cinemas near me but I missed it. Instead it was eventually released on Netflix, so I finally got to see it for myself more recently on there. I can certainly appreciate why it’s such a big deal, however the end product is simply just enjoyable and okay. Before I go into the review, I should mention that I watched the dubbed version, normally I wouldn’t do this when it comes to foreign movies, but it wasn’t exactly my decision to make. It’s based on a short story of the same name, I never read it so I can’t really talk about how it compares. There’s no denying that this movie is very ambitious, and the people working on the movie have clearly thought a lot about the world in this story and established how the Earth operates during that point in time. As a result though, they are forced to have a ton of exposition dumps explaining things, most prominently towards the beginning when the narrator talks about everything that’s happened between now and then. The thing is I can’t say that they should’ve cut out the narration and explaining of everything that is happening, because all this information needs to be known to the audience. There’s just way too much to process within that 2 hour runtime that at a point I just went with wherever the plot went. Maybe if it was as a mini series it might’ve worked better. I wasn’t really invested in the story, and by the halfway point I just grew tired of everything, mainly the plot and characters. At that point I was watching for the visuals. This movie is ridiculously over the top and doesn’t really make sense, and you should probably know that going in. It’s not China’s Interstellar or Gravity, think more their Geostorm (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Again, I watched the dubbed version of the movie so it wasn’t the actors’ voices I heard, but they are fine enough in the roles I think. My issues is more to do with the characters. There are just so many to keep track of, you really only remember some, and really none of them go through any kind of change. I guess the actors do well enough in their roles to make it work fine, but there weren’t really standouts, they were just okay. The direction by Frant Gwo is generally good. The special effects are the big selling point and for good reason. The production design is good and a lot of the visuals are good, but they at times delve into video game graphics. Still it manages to present things on such a large scale, and the CGI is good enough that it’s perfectly watchable. I’m not too familiar with how big budget sci-fi movies are in China, but if it’s really the biggest then good for them, even if again it’s their own version of Geostorm. This movie is a big deal for China, and for good reason. Beyond that fact and the visuals however, I’m not sure there’s much to say about this movie. Although it is very ambitious and is really trying, it’s overstuffed, a little clichéd, and difficult to really get invested in. However it’s not bad by any means and it’s even pretty good at points. It’s now on Netflix, so if you’re the least bit curious about it and have a couple hours to spare, then I’d say check it out. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2019/09/22/the-wandering-earth-2019-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Sept 24, 2019 20:27:22 GMT
My review of In Fabric I haven’t seen many of the movies from Peter Strickland, but I had seen The Duke of Burgundy, which I thought was really good. I had an interest in seeing the horror movie In Fabric because Strickland’s name was attached to it. Outside of the fact that Gwendoline Christie was in in it and it’s a horror movie, I knew basically nothing about it going in. In Fabric is certainly a strange movie, and for quite a while it does succeed very well for what it’s aiming for. However it is a let down by the second half, turning a very solid horror movie into an okay/decent one. One thing to know going in is that In Fabric is a slow moving movie, it takes some time to get things moving but for a while I was reasonably invested. The movie is also just a little bit strange, it is a movie about an evil dress after all, so you’re going to have to expect some weirdness at least. Of course, some of the weirdness is used for horror, and while I never felt scared, at times it does provide some effective uncomfortable moments. Some of the weirdness was used for comedy, especially with the dialogue, there are so many lines here that sound so ridiculous and outlandish I have to assume it was intentional and self aware. So that all sounds well and good, potentially a movie that I could love. However there is one problem, and it’s rather major. I won’t spoil what happens but the movie takes quite a different turn for the second half, and unfortunately it wasn’t for the better. The plot is slow even in the first half, but that part felt like it was building up to something. The second half kind of throws that out the window but follows a similar pattern. Sure it continued to have strange things happening, but it becomes less interesting and became repetitive. You’re not even freaked or weirded out, you’re just tired and hoping for something interesting to happen. Not to mention the new characters introduced are much less interesting than the established protagonist Sheila. Thankfully in the last 15-20 minutes it picks up again in providing at least some strangeness that makes the movie a little more interesting, but it’s not enough to make up for what happened that past hour. Marianne Jean-Baptiste plays the lead character of Sheila, who comes across the particularly red dress that proves troublesome over the course of the movie, and she was really good, really selling a lot of the ridiculous stuff that happens over the course of the movie. The rest of the cast is pretty good as well, the standout probably being Fatma Mohamed as Miss Luckmore, the store clerk who sells the dress to Sheila and is probably lot more than she initially appeared to be. Peter Strickland’s direction was great, a lot of it especially the editing is clearly influenced by some horror movies from the 70s like Suspiria. In Fabric such a stunning movie throughout, no matter how strange it may be. I know it’s a common thing to say about some movies, but it does have a David Lynch vibe to it, especially with the colours. There’s a lot of admirable aspects to be found In Fabric for sure. Peter Strickland directed it very well, the cast were mostly good (mainly Marianne Jean-Baptiste), and that first half is a really solid slow burn horror movie, with just the right amount of strangeness. It’s just a shame that the last half didn’t work so well and ultimately dragged down the rest of the movie. If you like Peter Strickland’s other movies and/or are open to seeing a bizarre and original horror movie, I’d say check it out. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/in-fabric-2019-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Sept 27, 2019 21:44:50 GMT
My review of Dragged Across Concrete I haven’t seen any of S. Craig Zahler’s other movies with Bone Tomahawk and Brawl in Cell Block 99, but I’ve definitely heard of them and have been meaning to get around to them for some time. I also heard about some controversial Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughn movie that was being made, and it turns out it’s this movie, didn’t learn until recently that Zahler actually directed it. I heard it was some crime drama, but beyond that and the cast involved, I didn’t really know much about it. Dragged Across Concrete like its title suggests is a grim crime thriller, written, directed and performed exceptionally, and it’s one of my favourites of 2019 thus far. Dragged Across Concrete boasts a sharply great script from director S. Craig Zahler, from the slowly paced storytelling to the effective dialogue. As I start, I think I should address the elephant in the room, or at least one of them. Ever since the premise of Dragged Across Concrete has been announced, people had been declaring this a MAGA pandering and all around bigoted movie. Given my very apparent praise for this movie already, you could probably already tell that I don’t agree with this. Almost everyone in the movie is not what we’d call ‘a good person’, and definitely not the recently suspended main characters, who are looking for ‘compensation’ after abusing their power as police officers. Sure the movie doesn’t exactly tell you that what they are doing is bad, but it certainly doesn’t endorse the main characters’ actions either, it just shows what they are and give some insight why they’re doing them. The characters are fully developed, fleshed out and feel real, especially the lead characters. People are going to have different opinions about the majority of them, but generally I think we can all agree that they are flawed yet human, with their own lives to lead that we get to have a glimpse at. They are still in the grey area of morality as they have both good and bad aspects to them. Really the only flat out ‘pure evil’ characters in the film that aren’t shown to have any redeeming qualities whatsoever are the dangerous masked men led by Thomas Kretschmann who appear, create chaos and kill people excessively. We don’t really get to learn about these particular characters or why they are how they are, but they are quite intimidating when they are on screen. It is a very bleak movie, the world these characters inhabit just feels unpleasant, the tone borders on nihilism, and as I said many of the characters are hard to root for. It’s generally easy for me to watch these kinds of movies (in fact I kind of love watching them) but I do know that some will find this to be a tough watch. There is one character who’s introduced, and their purpose is ultimately used for shock value (no spoilers), and while people will be split on that, I thought it worked well for the movie. Dragged Across Concrete is quite long at 2 hours 40 minutes, so you really need to be prepared for that. Although I was invested for much of the movie, I feel like it could’ve been cut out a good 10-15 minutes. Much of the movie takes its time, but it feels purposeful and not necessarily self indulgent. It builds up the personality of the characters and the world that they inhabit. Despite some of the more slower pacing throughout, it all comes together at the end to conclude very well. Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughn are the lead characters, and they were both great in their roles. Now this is Mel Gibson, and while there’s certainly going to be some people who have issues with him even in this movie (understandably), I almost feel like his casting here was a deliberate choice. Gibson generally delivers and this is no exception, this is one of his best performances, if not his best. Although I haven’t seen Vaughn’s other dramatic work like in True Detective or Brawl in Cell Block 99 (another Zahler film), I can say that he’s a great dramatic actor and he was really good here. Gibson and Vaughn are very easy to buy as two cops who have been partnered with each other for a while, and their dynamic was really great. The rest of the supporting cast further grounds the movie with Tory Kittles, Michael Jai White, Jennifer Carpenter, Laurie Holden, Don Johnson all doing well with their performances, no matter how brief they may be. Again, this is the first movie I’m seeing from S. Craig Zahler, and I can say that he’s great at what he does, it’s a really great looking movie. I’ve heard that his other movies are considerably more violent, but he handles the violence well here. The violence flashes rather quickly on screen and doesn’t happen as much as you think it would be, but when it’s present it feels grisly and realistic, it’s not overplayed but the impact is still there nonetheless. Dragged Across Concrete won’t work for everyone, it’s very long, it can be a hard watch, and it’s likely to provoke some people. However I thought that it was a generally well made movie, from the cast (particularly Gibson and Vaughn), to the direction and the story, it’s one of my favourite movies of 2019 thus far. I definitely want to see Zahler’s other movies now, he’s already proven with Dragged Across Concrete that he’s a really great filmmaker, and I’d love to see what he makes next. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2019/09/28/dragged-across-concrete-2019-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Sept 29, 2019 19:35:18 GMT
My review of Midsommar The delay on this review warrants an explanation. For many, Midsommar has already been released months ago. However for whatever reason, it took A24 a really long time to release it here in New Zealand, surprising considering that Hereditary (another A24 and Ari Aster directed movie) released here around the same time as everywhere else. So there was an absurd wait for it to come to cinemas here, and as of this moment I’m not even sure if it’ll ever come. The wait was bad enough, but it also seemed like plenty of people were just willing to post screencaps and spoilers about it with no filter whatsoever. So I pretty much knew most of the movie weeks before going into it, so that could be why a lot of the more ‘shocking’ parts really had little to no impact on me. So if at points I sound rather bitter throughout the review, that’s probably why. Midsommar was one of my most anticipated movies of the year. All I really knew about it was that it is the next film by Ari Aster, who directed Hereditary, which was in itself quite a great horror movie and one of the highlights from 2018. Midsommar was definitely an interesting change in terms of concept, it’s surrounding people who go to a Swedish cult and I was interested in it. As the movie released in most places and time passed, I just wasn’t that hyped for it. Admittedly it’s likely to do with the aforementioned fact that I was spoiled. Nonetheless I got onto watching it as soon as I could watch it in a quality that wasn’t cam footage. I’ve finally seen the movie, and let’s just say that I have some conflicting thoughts about this movie. Unlike plenty of people who have absolutely no consideration for others, I actually don’t want to spoil this movie for anyone, as it’s probably better experienced going in not knowing too much. So for those who haven’t been spoiled yet, this review is completely spoiler free. I’m fully aware that there is a director’s cut, I don’t know the differences between the cuts since I haven’t seen that version just yet. It’s going to be a while before I watch that however, it’s nearly 3 hours long and I don’t know if I’d be up for that. The theatrical cut is 2 hours and 30 minutes long, and I already had a hard time getting through all of that. The first 20 minutes is quite slow, and already it didn’t start off the best. It takes its time really building up everything or even getting to the primary location of the movie. I didn’t necessarily want it to be rushing through the plot, but I did want it to pick up the pace a little bit. It feels incredibly drawn out, even after it starts getting really ‘wild’ after the first hour. It’s got some horror, but it’s not horror in the traditional sense of a lot of jumpscares and the like. Hereditary was much more of a horror movie than Midsommar, so don’t expect to see similarities in the scares department. That’s not to say that the movie considerably improved when I viewed it as a drama instead of a horror movie however. The movie also has a surprising amount of comedy, and I can at least say that when present it was done well. So if you’re wondering why certain moments appear more comedic than scary, chances are that it was intentional. This movie like Hereditary was about grief, but whereas I felt that movie did it well, Midsommar did it to mixed results (no spoilers). The movie also sort of about toxic relationships, it establishes what direction it is going in but it sure takes it’s time telling it, with not much interesting stuff in between. Some thought has been put into aspects of the cult, but its rather 2 dimensional typical cult stuff. It’s really like you’ve seen similar things like this before. Sure there are some intentionally weird moments I guess, but again I wasn’t invested enough in the characters or the plot to be affected by or care about it. The ending is something that people are conflicted about. Given some of the reactions (because again some people on social media couldn’t just hold back on talking about the ending), I feel like some people are interpreting it wrong. While I’m fine with it, it’s nothing that I loved or anything, it was just like “well, I guess the movie is over”. Though my reaction is probably more to do with the rest of the movie than the actual ending. Now for the inevitable question, did knowing what was going to happen affect my experience? I did know in fact what was going to happen, but given that the movie was 2 hours and a half long, I expected much more to happen in between these moments. However that’s not the case, I could sum up the plot in about a few sentences and the amount of depth with the plotlines in that summary is about as deep as the actual movie goes. Yes the movie has stuff about bad relationships and grief/trauma, but it doesn’t really do anything with them. Not to mention waiting around for certain plot points to occur made the experience somehow even more tedious. The acting was quite good. The highlight is Florence Pugh as the lead character, easily the closest thing to a complex character in Midsommar. She does display a wide range of emotions, and is really good in the movie. The rest of the characters aren’t really given much in terms of depth. Jack Reynor plays the boyfriend and he does very well, but he more than the rest of the cast really suffers most from not having enough material to work with (though I did hear there’s more stuff with him in the director’s cut). The rest of the cast including Will Poulter, William Jackson Harper and Vilhelm Blomgren were also good. Ari Aster has definitely continued to expand his talent since Hereditary, going from a movie with a darker pallet to a much brighter one, and usually set out in the open where everything can be seen. There’s a lot of detail put into the location, costumes, production design and the like. It’s very well directed and a really good looking movie overall. If you have a weak stomach you might not be able to handle it, as there is some gore. With that said, none of it actually affected me or really disturbed me, it was sort of just there. The movie at times really seemed like it was trying to be disturbing, given the times it sometimes cut back to the moments of gore, but it didn’t make it any scarier to me. I wasn’t even really unnerved by the movie on the whole, I was just watching what was happening. I guess credit to Aster for only having one jumpscare throughout the whole movie. Midsommar is a movie that I have some very mixed thoughts on. The direction is pretty good, the acting is great, and some of the ideas did have potential. Even though I don’t dislike the movie however, I do have my issues. The movie is drawn out throughout it’s very long runtime, fails to interest, doesn’t really deliver on the themes it attempts to have a commentary on, and at times was a real chore to get through. Despite its length, it really explores so very little, it made me wonder why this movie even existed. It’s actually quite disappointing to me, I really thought I would like it a lot more. I might need to watch Hereditary again to see if that movie still holds up on a second viewing. Perhaps the director’s cut fixes some of the issues I have, but given the drawn out pacing and the length, let’s just say it’ll be a while before I get around to it. I honestly can’t guarantee whether you’ll like Midsommar or not, even about whether you liked Aster’s previous movie or not. I have seen people who hate Hereditary love this movie, and vice versa. So quite simply, if you’re interested in seeing it, then check it out for yourself. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2019/09/30/midsommar-2019-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Oct 1, 2019 20:35:23 GMT
My review of Parasite So I’ve heard much about this movie for a while now, there’s been a lot of hype surrounding it. This movie won the Palme d’Or, the highest award at this year’s Cannes Film Festival, and the director is Bong Joon-ho, who made Snowpiercer and Okja (and apparently plenty of acclaimed movies that I have yet to see). Not to mention all the overwhelming praise that it’s been receiving from those who’ve seen it. It’s very rare for some movies to be declared as outright masterpieces immediately after seeing them, and it’s even rarer for them to actually live up to all the immense acclaim, but Parasite did just that. Thankfully unlike some other recent movies released this year, people have chosen the much more respectable choice to not spoil anything from Parasite’s plot. I’ve not watched the trailer to the movie myself, but even if it doesn’t give anything away, I’m willing to bet the experience is still much better if you go in not having watched any footage beforehand. It’s actually pretty hard to review this movie, there are so many parts I’m choosing to not talk about that aren’t necessarily spoilers, but they’re even better when you don’t know that they are coming. So if I’m being vague, it’s for a very good reason. The writing is absolutely fantastic, for sure one of the best scripts of the year. Thematically, the movie is mostly about class as you could probably tell from the brief plot synopsises, and I liked how they explored that (again no spoilers). You’d actually be surprised to learn that much of the movie is a full on comedy, and I found so much of it gleefully hilarious as our protagonists somehow manage to succeed at their goal surprisingly easily. I had heard beforehand that it had some dark comedy, but I didn’t expect the amount there was (and if you know me, you know that I love me some great dark comedy). However at a certain point there’s a dramatic switch, and the movie turns into an all out thriller at the turn of a dime, and it does so very well. It’s gripping all the way to the very end. There are so many things set up earlier in the movie that come into play later on. It seems so well put together that I can see myself revisting Parasite sometime in the future. The movie is over 2 hours and 10 minutes long, and I enjoyed every second of it. The cast are all good, with the protagonists the Kim family being played by Song Kang-ho, Jang Hye-jin, Choi Woo-shik and Park So-dam, and the rich family (the Park family) played by Lee Sun-kyun, Cho Yeo-jeong, Jung Ji-so and Jung Hyun-joon. Everyone was great in their roles but personally my favourite was Song Kang-ho as the father of the Kim family, he’s been good in the few things I’ve seen him in and he’s stellar here. This is the third film I’ve seen from Bong Joon-ho, and I’ve really got to see his other movies because from what I’ve seen from him, he’s already shown himself to be a masterful filmmaker. It’s such a great looking movie, it’s shot pretty much perfectly and it really establishes you in their environments, whether it’s the Kim family’s basement home, or the wealthy Park family’s glamorise house. Also during the moments of tension, it’s fantastically directed. Even if you’ve never heard of this movie before, I implore you to watch Parasite as soon as you can, and knowing as little as possible going into it. The acting by everyone is really great, and Bong Joon-ho’s writing and direction is nothing short of phenomenal. It’s hilarious and entertaining, gripping and shocking, and just was one of the most satisfying experiences I’ve had watching a movie this year. I honestly can’t believe that it’s as great as it is, and I wasn’t even lowering my expectations necessarily. There are some upcoming movies that could potentially take its place, but for the time being, Parasite is firmly my favourite movie of the year. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2019/10/02/parasite-2019-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Oct 4, 2019 20:17:42 GMT
My review of Ad Astra Ad Astra was a movie I was looking forward to for a little bit. It sounded interesting from the small amounts of details I heard, I liked the cast involved, and the premise sounded like something I could get on board for. I also heard a lot about writer and director James Gray, although The Lost City of Z was the only movie I had seen from him. Nonetheless I wasn’t exactly sure what to really expect going in. Ad Astra is fantastic and amongst the best science fiction films released in recent years. Despite being misleading, much of the trailers and marketing are vague about the plot, and I also think it’s for your benefit that you don’t know too much going in, so I’ll avoid some plot details. After hearing about how slow Ad Astra was, it surprised me in how it moved much faster than I thought it was. Don’t get me wrong, it’s definitely a slow moving film, and if you’re not invested with the plot it’s going to be a chore for you. The movie was only 2 hours long and it did feel like it was that long, in a good way. As it was, I was personally wrapped up in the story and what was going on. There was always something happening as lead character Roy goes from place to place towards his goal. What the trailers didn’t indicate that was that it’s a very personal intimate movie. Now with it being about a man trying to find his long lost father it can be assumed that it would involve some personal element, but despite how large scale the movie is, it really is an intimate. When people compared Ad Astra to Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now, they weren’t entirely off, in regards to the journeys that the lead characters go on. It’s a very haunting movie, whether it be the obstacles and other things that Roy encounters or his own personal journey. I also thought the movie ended perfectly. Brad Pitt plays the lead character of Roy McBride and he’s fantastic in the role. His character is very cold and quiet, and as the events of the movie progress and he begins to learn certain things, that facade begins to deteriorate. He’s very much affected by his father, and things that happened before affected the way that he acts now. There are times where you hear voiceovers from Pitt about his feelings. It’s a very subtle yet powerful and believable performance, one of Pitt’s best work. The supporting cast is good, with Tommy Lee Jones (as Pitt’s father), Ruth Negga, Liv Tyler and Donald Sutherland providing some good work. However don’t expect to see a ton of them throughout. It’s really Pitt who’s at the center of everything, the story is heavily relying on him, thankfully he delivers. James Gray has directed this movie immensely well. It is absolutely stunning with some outstanding visual effects, Hoyte Van Hoytema has done some great work here and it’s unsurprising that the visuals here rivals Interstellar’s. I won’t go into too much detail about the locations and scenarios that the movie presents and I’m fully aware that this is science fiction and set in the future, but there were times where it seemed like one of the more realistic portrayals of space on the big screen that I’ve seen in a while. You really felt the weight of everything that was happening. The movie is also very contemplative and allows some space for the movie to breathe, usually having Pitt narrate during these moments. Max Richter always produces some very powerful music, and Ad Astra is no exception, it really added a lot to the movie. No, Ad Astra isn’t going to work for everyone. It’s slower paced, and the trailers seemed to indicate a slightly more action paced and larger scaled movie than it actually was. However I personally loved the movie. It’s a very character driven and personal storyline that I was invested in, directed wonderfully, and the cast were great (particularly Brad Pitt). It’s one of my favourites of the year thus far. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2019/10/05/ad-astra-2019-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Oct 7, 2019 20:31:32 GMT
My review of Joker Joker was one of my most anticipated movies of the year. The idea of a solo Joker movie but also one completely disconnected from the established DCEU seemed questionable at best. Also I wasn’t quite sure about director Todd Phillips helming it, I liked the few movies I’ve seen from him but I did have my doubts. However the inclusion of Joaquin Phoenix in the lead role completely sold me on the movie, and seeing trailer after trailer and hearing about their take on the iconic character, I was excited to say the least, I haven’t seen a comic book movie taken in a direction like this. Joker is already proving to be a very divisive movie, but I’m glad that I’m firmly on the side that loved it. I’ll be sure not to reveal too much about Joker, but people going in should know what kind of movie they’re in for. It is a slow burn character study following the deterioration of a mentally ill man, who eventually becomes the Joker, that’s the best way I can put it. For 3 quarters of the movie we don’t even see Arthur in the final Joker makeup, so don’t expect a Joker movie with a lot of action, mayhem or anything. You could almost call the movie Arthur: Portrait of a Killer Clown or something. Personally I loved the movie for what it is. You can probably tell that it’s a dark movie but it’s not just because it’s violent, it’s fittingly uncomfortable and grim for the most part. It is quite possibly the bleakest and most ‘disturbing’ comic book movie, and again it’s not necessarily because of the violence. The third act is where the movie particularly ramps up with Arthur as the Joker, and was personally the highlight of the movie. Now much has been said that we are following a villain, and especially one as infamous as The Joker. I’ll give my perspective on how it handles those aspects, but just know that I’m not covering the age old question of “Does movies or video games lead to violence?”, because if you’ve read much of my reviews you can probably figure out my perspective regarding that. The movie doesn’t point out that the character is doing bad things because the actions are obviously bad. Him murdering people shouldn’t require a giant sign to flash saying “this is bad, don’t do this”. Not to mention that this is Joker we are talking about, one of the most clear cut villains in fiction you can think of. Now in saying that, this is the first time in a movie where you have to actually look at Joker as a human being and more than just a comic book villain (or even an Agent of Chaos), and I guess that both frightens and concerns people. The movie isn’t necessarily asking you to sympathise or feel sorry for Arthur Fleck (the lead character who would eventually become the Joker) every step of the story. I guess I’d say that I was sympathetic towards Arthur for the first 10 minutes with everything that is happening to him. Otherwise for most of the rest of the movie, I just felt sympathy for the acts made upon him, but not necessarily to Arthur himself. While you might understand why he does the things he does with his circumstances, you aren’t necessarily in a position where you think “this is perfectly justified and I support everything he’s doing”. There are a few criticisms I’ve heard. One is how clearly it’s inspired by Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, but is a little too derivative of it and is ultimately just a riff on them with the character of Joker. While I guess there are plenty of aspects that are taken from those two movies (even though I get the feeling that Phillips and co. were very self aware about this while making it), I think Joker does enough to separate itself from them to be its own movie, for the most part at least. I do like how they keep Joker as a standalone movie. Without spoiling things, I guess storywise you could follow it up with a sequel, but it seems very much like it was intended to be a one off movie and not one intended to start off a cinematic universe. One thing is for sure though, you definitely won’t see him face off against Robert Pattinson’s Batman or anything, so put that out of your mind if you even thinking about it. I liked what the movie was about thematically and was trying to talk about. It’s about class warfare, abuse, media, the way mentally ill people are treated (or not treated), mental healthcare, capitalism and more, it’s at least making an attempt to talk about them. Despite what you might’ve heard, this movie is NOT about incels or incel culture at all. People have talked about all the dangerous and problematic parts to the movie, but honestly the only real problematic and downright irresponsible part of the movie was the questionable use of a Gary Glitter song in one scene. Now in terms of some slight issues I had, there aren’t many but considering I was just addressing some criticisms I guess I should mention some of my own. There is a particular twist that happens during the movie, I saw it coming but that’s not necessarily the problem. It’s more that the reveal spent so much time flat out explaining the twist to the audience when we’d be able to figure it out without the obvious explanation. I guess there are some moments that are a little rough around the edges for what they were aiming for. Some of the attempts at making commentary on some of the aforementioned themes I guess were a little heavy handed and too “on the nose” at times, but I could get past it, I just sort of put that up to the story being told from the Joker’s perspective. It’s really not a subtle movie at all and you pick up on that really quickly. Joker also could’ve gone a little deeper into some concepts, I almost feel like the movie could’ve been a little longer to flesh certain parts out more. I was fully invested in the movie at least on a first watch, but for the most part the plot goes in the general direction that you’d expect it to, with not a lot of surprises. Also while I largely like the ending, I felt that it would’ve been a little more effective if it ended 30 seconds to a minute earlier on a particular visual beat, but I’m just nit-picking at this point. The rest of the movie is well made but it’s really Joaquin Phoenix that makes this movie. His work here as Arthur Fleck/Joker is extraordinary. This could very well be a career best performance from him, and considering his past work that’s really saying a lot (it’s at least on the level as his work on The Master). He’s pretty much in every single scene of the movie and relies so much on him delivering, and he absolutely does. One aspect that was particularly interesting about this take was his laugh. As we all know, in most forms of media, Joker typically laughs because he finds something funny, usually something morbid that he’s just done. In this movie however, it’s actually a result of a real life condition where Arthur laughs and can’t stop laughing even when he wants to, and for the most part it seems utterly painful for him. It’s an original idea for the Joker to have for his laugh, and I’m surprised they didn’t have that as an interpretation for him in a comic book (correct me if I’m wrong and one comic already did that, I’m not a massive comic book expert). As previously mentioned, the movie forces you to at least look at him as a human being and somewhat empathise with him, and this was a risky movie. However Phoenix managed to deliver such a complex performance where you could actually look at him as more than just a monster (even if he is that). At the same time, you can recognise that Fleck is absolutely disturbed and demented, and has his fair share of genuinely scary moments. Arthur’s transformation into the Joker also was fascinating, as he gets pushed (and pushes himself) further down into that direction. As he embraces the Joker persona more and more, you see him more confident and full of life, especially compared to earlier on in the movie. And on a side note, I’m not even going to compare him to Heath Ledger’s Joker or any of the other Jokers for that matter, there’s really no point. They’re completely different Jokers, and Phoenix does more than enough to make this incarnation of the character to stand on his own. The rest of the supporting cast really don’t have much to do compared to Joaquin but they do the best they can possibly do. Whether that be Robert De Niro as a talk show host that Arthur idolises, Zazie Beetz as a neighbour that Arthur is interested in, Frances Conroy as Arthur’s mother, or Brett Cullen as Thomas Wayne, they all fit into the story well. Even some of the brief one scene appearances like Brian Tyree Henry played their small parts well. Now I want to briefly touch upon the Wayne aspects of the story, in a non spoiler way of course. It can be said that it’s possible for this movie to just have Joker, Gotham and Arkham Asylum being the only DC references that are in the movie, and they didn’t need to include Thomas or Bruce Wayne. Personally I thought it fitted in the story alright, and there is a certain aspect with Bruce’s existence in this movie that does make the movie even better towards the end. Though I can’t exactly explain it without going into heavy detail, hopefully you’ll be able to figure it out. This is by far and away the best work that director Todd Phillips has done, his direction of Joker is shockingly exceptional, and it’s not even that I think he’s a bad director or anything. Gotham is portrayed as a dirty 70s and 80s New York City. It really does capture the vibes that Scorsese gave in aforementioned movies like Taxi Driver, but I don’t think Phillips is just imitating or ripping off that style, just clearly heavily inspired by it. It’s a gorgeous looking movie, the cinematography is stunning. There isn’t really a whole lot of violence, and when it comes to comic book movies, there have been some more violent films out there (Watchmen, Deadpool 1 and 2, Logan, etc). However it was nonetheless effective and disturbing, and it’s more to do with how realistic it looks and sounds, it’s graphic but it happens very fast. But if you’re just talking about levels of violence, I’ve definitely seen plenty of movies with way higher levels of extreme violence than Joker. The score by Hildur Guðnadóttir was great, tense and eerie, fitting perfectly with the rest of the film. For sure one of the best scores of the year. Most of the other song choices were also good, although I’m still thinking about that one Gary Glitter song… needless to say this probably is the only criticism of the movie that I won’t defend against whatsoever. Joker isn’t going to work for everyone, and the reactions online already indicates that it’s probably going to remain the most divisive movie of the entire year. I’m not sure that a lot of people are prepared for the type of movie it is. It’s not a movie I’m going to rewatch constantly but as it is, I think it’s great. Honestly I’m surprised at how well Todd Phillips (mostly) put together this movie. But it’s of course Joaquin Phoenix who really makes this movie, and it’s worth watching to see his extraordinary performance, even if you don’t like the rest of the movie. The idea of DC Black with all these other separate stories disconnected from the DCEU certainly have a lot of potential if we can see comic book movies taken in a different direction that we haven’t seen before. As for whether Joker should have a sequel, I personally don’t think it really needs to, it’s fine with how it is. But if Todd Phillips has some great ideas for a follow up and Joaquin is (unexpectedly) up for another movie in the iconic role, then I’d be on board with it. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2019/10/08/joker-2019-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Oct 24, 2019 22:39:50 GMT
My review of Zombieland: Double Tap Zombieland was such a surprise hit upon its release back in 2009, gaining quite the following. A follow up to the original Zombieland has been in development for some time, including a potential tv series, it just seemed like a sequel just wouldn’t happen. 10 years later however, the cast and crew finally return, including director Ruben Fleischer and the 4 main leads. The question was whether Double Tap could capture what the original was, given how long its been since the first movie. It’s more or less the same as the original, a fun zombie road trip comedy with a great cast that play off each other well. Substance-wise, Zombieland: Double Tap I guess is more of the same. The plot is really nothing special, Tallahassee, Columbus and Wichita just try to find Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), that’s pretty much the story of the movie. Then again what made the original movie work wasn’t the plot, it was the writing and how much fun it was. There’s certainly quite a lot of familiar aspects here, but they actually did a lot more than I thought they would in trying to keep things fresh. They do try to introduce some things, for example there are new zombie types instead of the regular zombies in the first movie. Double Tap is quite funny and entertaining across its hour and 40 minute runtime, all the things you love from the first movie are here. I guess there was one part of the movie where they tried to mislead the audience into thinking something happened, but the joke and twist was kind of obvious. Outside of that I don’t really have any major issues. Definitely stick around for the mid credits, it’s worth the wait for sure. The main 4 leads return with Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin, and are as usual good and share great chemistry together. It can be very jarring watching them and realising that it’s been 10 years since the first movie in the plot, as it appears that really only Abigail Breslin has aged at all. Woody Harrelson shined in the first movie and he’s also hilarious in the sequel. The weakest of the 4 is definitely Breslin, not that she’s bad but she’s really not given much to do. Despite the plot surrounding the other 3 finding her, she really doesn’t appear a lot in the movie. The supporting cast are also good in their roles. Zoey Deutch from the trailers looked like she’d get annoying really quickly, but she was the standout of the newer cast, providing the first time I’ve seen a ditzy Valley Girl stereotype actually work in a movie. She was genuinely funny and stole all of her scenes. In fact the only annoying part about her was this forced ‘love trianglish’ subplot between her, Eisenberg and Stone which really was not wanted at all. Other supporting actors like Rosario Dawson and Luke Wilson also worked well. Ruben Fleischer returns to direct and he does well at making the sequel feel bigger. It’s certainly retains the same style from the first movie. The action scenes are well filmed and they’re on a much larger scale. The violence and gore is quite satisfying, and the makeup and effects on the zombies are good, but that’s to be expected. Although I still feel that it would’ve been much better if it was made 5 years ago (it certainly would’ve had more hype and impact), I still had quite a lot of fun with Zombieland: Double Tap, mostly for the same reasons that I liked the original so much. If you are a fan of the original Zombieland, I’d find it hard to see why you wouldn’t get any sort of enjoyment out of the sequel. If you aren’t such a fan on the other hand, you won’t like the sequel any more. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2019/10/25/zombieland-double-tap-2019-review/ |
|
