Reviews

While I do like trying to figure out stuff on my own, The Matrix has a difficult time setting up its premise, and can at first glance seem to fall short of reaching any kind of meaningful point. I'll be touching on some things that were mentioned in the first and second movie, so if you haven't seen those, consider this your spoiler warning.

I myself had to dig into some analysis of the movie because I couldn't find a single point to grab onto at the end. What the entire trilogy fails entirely to outline (and the reason why Reloaded and Revolutions could've been just one movie) is the philosophy behind the premise. This is why I like the movies, it tries to present some fairly profound ideas, but the problem is that they disappear behind the action, so the basics of the premises that the movie is built on are never even brought up. Obviously I don't expect to be spoon fed every little point of the narrative, but in the case of these movies I'm given so little that as a more casual viewer, it's hard to find anything to work on. I like movies that want the viewer to think, but unless you're familiar with Baudrillard's 'Simulacra and simulation' (a title that is ever so briefly seen in the first movie), you're likely to miss out on a lot of what the movie wants you as a viewer to consider, and since it's such a complex topic, I would've liked to see the dialogue of the movie delve more into this.

For those that haven't fallen asleep from seeing the word 'philosophy' mentioned, the case is this: at the most basic level, The Matrix is an allegory for Plato's Cave, asking 'what is reality?', while another question it wants to bring is whether we can know if we're in a simulation or not. It's very possible that both The Matrix and 'the real world' are both part of the simulation, set up to handle the 'problem of choice' and human irrationality mentioned by the Architect in Reloaded. It goes a lot deeper than this, but I recommend finding a movie analysis breakdown for a better explanation.

Thematically, the movies are interesting; on the surface, a fight for survival between man and machine, but if you're able to pull back the layers, you can find a lot of questions to ask. Unfortunately, the blockbuster format has in my opinion never been great for handling complex questions, although I guess it works as a way to get it past the conformists that want people to enjoy media without thinking.

My score of this movie, and the series as a whole is more about what they represent rather than the presentation, which doesn't manage to bring a whole lot to the table between the various action scenes.

If you're a fan of Tolkien's expanded universe, and are familiar with The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, you will not like this show. It deviates so far from existing lore that it becomes less than a caricature.

If you've seen The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies, the story here is so far removed from either of those it might as well be totally unrelated, save for a few names, characters and places.

If you're brand new to Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit and Tolkien in general, and don't know anything about any of it, this is a sub-par, mediocre fantasy story at best, with very little in the way of connecting story to anything else, completely lacking in internal logic and pacing, and doesn't even have an internal continuity.

On its own it's a boring, disjointed mess of a story, more reminiscent of poorly written fan-fiction, with characters so poorly fleshed out they appear one-dimensional, the plot seems like a first draft that should've been worked more on, and what little it actually borrows from Tolkien's written word is taken out of its original context and repurposed to fit whatever little narrative there is. The set design is uninspired, the elven costume design is completely lacking - aside from the armour worn by the southerner guards, which is the only place where there seems to actually be some cohesiveness to the design, and the armour of the Numenoreans are so obviously printed shirts.

Out of the roster of 20-something characters there were 3 I actually liked: Adar, Disa, and to some extent, Durin IV. Adar because it's actually a well acted portrayal of a slightly interesting character, Disa because she's the only one that shows some actual, believable agenda, and Durin because he's quite funny, and also decently portrayed by the actor.

It seems to me there's no group of people this show would be suited for, so I have to ask myself, who is this show really for?

Despite its many shortcomings - the techno rave, the length and number of fight scenes - I must admit there is a lot about this movie I do like. Having not seen it for many years, and grown considerably since the last time, it manages to continue the narrative of the first movie in a convincing manner. That said, this movie suffers greatly from being the middle child of the original trilogy, being neither a beginning nor end to the story, and I can't help but feel that it's heavily padded to expand its runtime.

Whereas the first movie was a more philosophical piece that only came to blows in the most desperate situations, this movie relishes in the almost endless action scenes with greatly exaggerated slow-mo shots and heavily choreographed fights. The action doesn't necessarily distract from the plot, but it can very much seem like they're stalling for time, since they could easily have trimmed the runtime with 30 minutes and it probably would've flowed just as well, or perhaps more ideally merged this with the third movie and eased up on the fight scenes. The fight scenes and the large sweeping shots are also where modern audiences might notice the blatant switching to CG, but is done well enough to not be too distracting, though it's definitely 2003.

With that said, I obviously liked the movie. It doesn't feel like they're stalling for time because they're out of ideas, but more to emphasise their fight for survival, something Morpheus' overly dramatic speeches certainly speaks to, himself seeming more devoted to the cause than ever before. It does manage to bring back some of the philosophical questions of the first movie and build a bit further, but doesn't go terribly far, though there's some key elements to the story that you can't miss. While I would've liked more meat to the story, I still feel it's handled pretty well, and while I personally find the whole romance a bit tiresome, it's at least not simply tacked on to please the audience.

Love it or hate it, it gets a pass from me for how much I like the premise of the story and sci-fi in general.

I'm not sure how much of my score for this one is because this was a movie I watched a number of times in my childhood. It's a very by-the-numbers average 90s Disney straight-to-VHS sequel, not really worth watching or remembering. It really does tell you how strong childhood nostalgia is, you will excuse all kinds of terrible storytelling and weird plot holes because flashing images on a screen. Having seen this of course means I'm familiar with the first one, and while that's a perfectly okay movie that could still be worth watching, both that one and this pretty much completely neglects most of any historical context, aside from Pocahontas being "a woman", pointed out by Ratcliffe to the horror of the king's court. Obviously being a Disney production, it can't necessarily point out any hard truths about history, but the view on women is brought up this once and then never truly addressed again; Pocahontas pretty much handles any situation however she wants and this view on women doesn't seem to be much of a restriction for her actions - in stark contrast to British society in the 1600s, a strict social hierarchy where the opinion of women could be ignored outright. The movie pretty much falls in line with Disney's view on not wanting to discuss social issues, whether historical or current.

Watch at your own peril, but as a discerning adult, I would honestly advise against watching this one, it serves no real value, even as a simple flick for kids.

While I had heard good things about this movie, I know horror can be a mixed bag, but I will say the turn this movie took was quite the surprise for me. The story opens with the death of the family grandmother, we're presented with the various degrees of grief experienced in the family, and we get some backstory, but I can't go much further in this description without spoiling things, so let's talk about what makes this movie surprisingly good.

First point is that this isn't loaded with gore played for shock value. There is some, but it's not excessive, and plays well into the story. The acting is incredibly well done, the bouts of grief, shock and terror are believable. The movie is slow, brooding and builds further than I initially expected, and it manages to stay mostly serious enough without getting silly - although some of the scenes featured known horror tropes and made me laugh. It's rare to see horror this well executed, making what I believe to be a genuinely good horror movie. If you end up liking this one as well as me, you'll want to watch Midsommar as well, also made by Ari Aster.

A movie that was featured multiple times on TV while I was growing up, and although I never got a chance to watch it back then, the title's been floating around in my subconscious since then. After about 20 years I have come around to watch it, which I guess is a quick turnaround for me, but I digress. The movie itself presents an interesting premise, through a series of mishaps featuring a magical artefact stolen from a Buddhist temple, father and son gets switched around, and "son" needs to hold it up in 5th grade while "dad" goes off to work. So far so standard, if you've seen any other body swap-movie before, it's pretty obvious where the plot goes after that. What keeps this movie going is the at least somewhat passable humour of the expected awkwardness when people are thrown into the deep end and need to pretend like everything's okay. There's enough charm and warmth to keep it going, and had me laughing at least a few times. I do think Reinhold kind of overplays the awkwardness of his son, however that could also be interpreted as the character still reeling from the shock of suddenly having to pretend to be an adult and not knowing what's actually expected of him. Fred Savage does quite an impressive impersonation of his father character, showing that young children really do understand more than one might think.

While my ultimate goal with a review is to reveal as little as possible of the story to avoid spoilers, I feel I must draw attention to what is possibly the most peculiar section of a department store I've ever seen, featuring James Bond-level spy-gadgets, something that caught me completely off-guard and got me wondering what kind of movie this really is. Considering it already features said magical artefact, I guess it's not too much of a stretch to include improbably gadgetry.

All in all a fairly enjoyable watch, but sadly I feel it's ultimately forgettable, and at least for a modern audience that has seen other body swap-movies already, it's more of a curiosity that's been copied and done over again at least a few times by now. There's nothing wrong with it in that regard, but if it came down to rewatching this or 'Freaky Friday', I'd probably go with the latter simply because of the one song in the soundtrack that movie is most famous for.

Hear me out, okay? How many times have we seen the same story; earth stands on the brink of disaster, a divorced man or with family trouble needs to go the distance to reach his family and save them from the embarrassment of a new family man, facing off against improbable odds as the world collapses around him, with close calls and cliff hangers aplenty. I'm obviously not expecting these movies to set the world on fire (ironically), but they could at least try and mix up the formula. I could be giving a review of 2012 here, and nobody would notice, in fact I have to really think twice about which movie Yellowstone blows up in. It's 2012, by the way.

So of course the main character can't die, which kind of undermines the whole excitement aspect. Spectacular vistas of the world going up in flames (or in this case, ice) can't really save me from the nagging feeling of knowing that if the main character dies, the whole plot goes south. Once the plot establishes the family man, his family and their potential love interests, the rest are basically collateral that may or may not be sacrificed along the way.

Am I too jaded by real life then when I can't even be bothered to care about any of the cast dying, or has the movie possibly failed to make me care? Whatever the case, it doesn't bode well when the expedition is perilous and your name isn't first on the cast roster. And of course humanity persists, as it always does, because if there's one thing you can't do in a disaster flick, it's make people lose hope, to make the audience think that there isn't always good in humanity. I don't necessarily disagree with the message, but it comes across in an annoying 'we will rebuild' way that just smacks of lazy writing.

I feel Emmerich gets too much of a free pass with these movies, given how many different scenarios he's come up with to put people in precarious and preposterous peril. Although my score would say otherwise, this isn't necessarily a bad movie since the production value is pretty high, it's more a reaction to the tired old formula that we've seen too many times already in movies like Moonfall, 2012, Armageddon, Deep Impact, Godzilla and Independence Day, and while I'm aware that some of these came out after The Day After Tomorrow (in case you forgot which movie this review is for), none of these do much different in terms of plot devices. The specifics may vary, but ultimately they are about as formulaic as Scooby-Doo.

I'm a sucker for the oddball comedy, and this one is about as odd as they come. It will find its place among the rest of my gang of misfit comedies that the high and mighty might scoff at. Or they might not, comedies are perhaps more than anything, aside from horror films, something that you simply have to try for yourself to see if you like it. It seems some of my favourites often feature the main cast stumbling their way through one surprising event after another, that weaves a story along the way.

The Coen brothers certainly have an interesting way of telling a story that I very much enjoy, so it should come as no surprise that I enjoyed this one. What did come as a surprise was the fact that I'd somehow glossed over this being a Coen movie before starting it, which I was subsequently reminded of when the action kicked things into gear. Special credits go to the music score, lifting this movie an extra notch.

...not because the movie's funny, but rather its unintentionally hilarious sequences featuring a wall-hating tank, an immortal main character that can sniff a rat a mile away, and a missile going on a magical adventure.

Basically everything about this movie is bad, from its bog-standard plot to the props themselves (for those searching, Snipes is apparently wielding an ASALT 96), to the hilariously poor "spec ops" work, where these elite soldiers can be found trundling noisily down a stone hallway on their secret mission - although this is apparently for plot-reasons, so one can wonder if these soldiers were sent in specifically for their incompetence, a la 'All the Queen's Men'. Whatever the reason, this movie fell into the spectrum of 'so bad it actually manages to be funny' mainly because I thought the only one that would be able to snipe people with an SMG at 200 feet was Steven Segal. The movie takes itself way too seriously, so you definitely shouldn't.

To attempt to explain why I like a movie sometimes seems like an exercise in futility. If a movie is bad, I can find lots of things to say about that, but how can I explain why I like something? This might seem a little off-topic, but the reason I mention it is because sometimes I just can't put my finger on it. Much like 'Pulp Fiction' (which came out the same year), this movie is focused around dialogue and character interaction (or in some cases the lack thereof), so the emphasis is much more on the characters and whether they are believable. And while the crude topics and coarse language may or may not be there for shock value, in my experience people tend to be less interesting than one might think, and will talk about anything that's on their mind. Nearly every line coming from Randal seems to be focused around sex, aside from when he's trying to be philosophical about life, although it seems to come from a place of borderline incompetence - much like many of his decisions to try and "help" Dante. I guess Randal's mind being flooded with teenage hormones is the explanation for his behaviour, and being around college-age, it certainly fits the bill. The movie shows a level of understanding towards the type of impulsive behaviour often seen in young adults and the consequences that come of this, which I would argue could hardly be a coincidence.

The movie comes off to me as a slice of life drama-comedy, a brief insight into the world that is someone's life, hypothetical or not, adjacent to other lives with their own lived experiences. The characters certainly seem like they could be real, it's hard to gauge what goes on behind the outward façade we all live with. The movie itself doesn't convey this, it's just "stuff happened, the end", meaning what happens in the plot isn't necessarily what makes the movie interesting. The conclusion that I think I can reach is that one of the things that I like about a movie, is when it gives you enough bits of a mirror for you to reflect, not necessarily upon the movie itself, but upon what experiences can be read from it. Do I recommend this movie? That depends entirely on your perspective. If you're looking for a comedy with no deeper insight, I would say no, I can't recommend it. The unfiltered dialogue and crude jokes may entertain some, but unlike dross like 'Epic Movie' or 'Disaster Movie', that's not the movie's big selling point. I can't say if some of it is played for shock value, or intended to show the honesty of how people talk between friends, but if you like your comedy clean, then definitely steer clear. If on the other hand you are the kind to entertain thoughts and run with them to see where you end up, I'd say give it a shot and see where it takes you. The movie itself is merely a vessel for your own thoughts, attempting to take you in a direction you may not've been before. Compared to more recent movies, it doesn't reach as far, it's highly contemporary for its time, but still an interesting watch.

Perhaps one of the more absurd Hong Kong comedies I've seen, but still an amusing watch. The story is somewhat weak, but is still able to carry the movie's runtime, it doesn't feel overly padded or seem like it's stalling for time, except perhaps for the social commentary in the start that is mainly to introduce the female protagonist cast. Luckily it doesn't stray too much into awkward romance that some of these movies tend to lean on, and the amount of second-hand embarrassment is fairly low, although it does play on quite a few tropes regarding the cheating husband trying to constantly sneak out on his wife in every situation he can think of, but it's fairly humorously played by Richard Ng.

The fight scenes are some of the more intense I've seen, but only really gets to play out in a satisfying fashion towards the end. Funny slapstick and serious punching action blends quite elegantly, and the comedy is well executed.

The type of comedy is reminiscent of Mel Brooks, at times juvenile but not so childish that it turns unfunny, although there are some themes that would simply not fly in movie production today, such as a few jokes about being intellectually disabled. The fight scenes are punchy, although I personally am not a huge fan of the slow motion-shots, of which there's quite a few. If you're able to overlook some shortcomings and are looking for a simple comedy, it's a movie that'll entertain you.

I've given movies worse scores for fewer transgressions, but this movie did surprisingly enough manage to hold on to me to the end. Well, mostly. The movie sports a tone so bleak that all characters - with one brief exception - are played overly serious and unable to experience any joy in their life, lest it come from the prophesised princess who will save them all, and they all seem content with waiting for that to eventually happen. While Hemsworth's introduction teased an entertaining character who would be able to shine some light on this overly bleak fairy tale, it's merely a ruse to hide yet another "heartbroken" character, so bland that it leaves no taste at all. Charlize Theron's performance is rock solid, and manages to carry a lot of the weight of the movie, but being the villain in a modernized fairy tale, there's no ambiguity to her fate at the end of the movie.

As far as writing goes, it's as bland as it gets. Right there on the point between boring, predictable and still somehow watchable, where I would say this movie is remarkable in how unremarkable it really is.

4 stars, because there's absolutely zero re-watch value, but not bad enough to warrant disliking it.

You end up with a bunch of flat earthers talking about stuff they know nothing about.

Watch as people with no formal scientific education try to dismantle and discredit several entire branches of established truth using their own complete misunderstanding of how reality works, and fill in the gaps with mad conspiracy theories and half-baked ideas that are so easily picked apart they have to censor the list of external reviews down to this one youtuber that nobody's ever heard of.

Categorizing this as a documentary is a travesty and an affront to real documentaries.

Okay, so it's not really Mario. Rename the characters, and you have a half-decent cyberpunk-ish movie with a mediocre plot, some quite good set-pieces and effects. Seriously, the special effects in this movie are actually really good, especially by 1993 standards.

So why the hate? Probably because people wanted to see a sidescrolling plumber who disappears through giant green pipes and jumps on the heads of mean creatures, and were let down when what they got was a slightly grim cyberpunk sci-fi with some big names and some incredibly dry humour (which is something I absolutely love). The plot itself is fairly thin, but it's still better than a lot of "damsel in distress"-stories out there; where the movie shines the most are the ways in which the two main characters navigate their way through a brutal and uncaring alien world.

I can definitely recommend this movie, and I recommend you don't buy into the hate, put aside your expectations of Mario, don't expect a stellar plot, appreciate the little nods to the franchise, and have a good time with this little action romp!

Let me preface my review with that YES, I understood the plot. It didn't confuse me, and it wasn't particularly hard to follow.

So why then is this movie so boring? Why did it fail to make me care about any of the characters? Ving Rhames and Jean Reno gets wheeled in, and I'm thinking 'okay, now we really got a movie here!'. Sadly I was disappointed. Ving Rhames spends his critical role in a back room somewhere, and Jean Reno is just a muscle henchman. I can't tell if I saw the plot twist coming or not, but it didn't surprise me or shock me even in the slightest, nor did the ending chase sequence, which was just all kinds of boring. The only redeeming quality this movie has, is the infamous break-in scene that has been copied to death at this point.

What makes this a little strange is that this isn't a BAD movie. it's just that I found myself thinking after the movie was over, 'was that it?'. I don't need to be wowed with woosh-bang-massive explosions to enjoy a movie, but this plot seemed barely ankle deep.

I don't know, maybe spy thrillers just aren't for me. Bottom line: if the Brosnan bond-movies don't excite you very much, don't watch this.

The more I think about the movie, the more it annoys me. It is visually impressive, with the action shots making for some of the most interesting scenes in the movie, but the story is just so downright boring and uninspired, taking no chances and just rolls along it's surprisingly predictable path with no character building or development, devoid of emotions unless you count the perplexingly awkward softcore scenes that seems tacked on just to mark the movie as "for adults".

The characters are completely flat and unlikable with no redeeming qualities. "I trust you 100%" says Foxx to Farrell more than one time, a trust that might be true to the characters, but from an outside view, we're watching unknowns talking about unknowns, and with too many unknowns, this is an equation that can't be solved.

The plot is very much not an unknown, though, as anyone who's seen more than one movie about undercover cops and drug-networks can attest to, it follows the same predictable path, (see 'A man apart' for another example) the only variation being the endangerment of someone close to the main characters, but since the main characters between them only have one 'emotional attaché', this is about as surprising as the sun rising in the morning - and like the sun, it's only a matter of when it happens. Since the movie alludes to this in the establishing scenes, it can hardly be considered a spoiler, and I can't consider it a spoiler because it's part of the entourage of tropes that comes with this movie.

What I'll consider the final nail in the coffin before wrapping up this review is the audio. I mentioned that while the movie is visually impressive, in fact I'll downright call it a pretty movie, the sound is absolutely not - if you'll forgive my overly memetic reference - credit to team. After about 15 minutes, I had to pause the movie and turn on the subtitles, because I couldn't be sure if I heard the dialogue correctly. Coupled with a lot of names, places and jargon, the poor audibility of the characters meant that despite cranking the audio up and turning the voice-amplifier to max, I still couldn't be sure I heard what the characters were saying, and while the movie is as predictable as they come, I'd still like to be able to hear what's being said. The one good thing about the sound design is how well it works its theme. It is a very quiet movie that only comes alive in the explosive scenes, at all other times it's quiet and brooding, which I will say added to the tone of the movie.

Do I recommend this movie? No. Absolutely not. As a reference on 'how to shoot action scenes in the dark' and 'establishing beautiful panoramic shots', this movie is definitely of interest for anyone aspiring to film making; the action scenes are exquisitely well crafted and genuinely exciting, but the story falls flat on its face, and while I don't usually have a problem with open-ended movies, this movie just ends out of nowhere with no conclusion, returning their characters to normalcy once they've recovered. The characters came out of nowhere, went nowhere (despite travelling all over the Caribbean), and ultimately returned to nothing. While I like pretty movies and am prone to giving movies a pass for being visually interesting, Miami Vice leans too heavily on it's weak story, and it just doesn't hold up.

I'm hoping this isn't going to be my running theme when it comes to Mann's movies, but I didn't like Hancock either. Collateral is on my to-do list, I'm hoping it can convince me that I've just been unlucky with what movies I've seen so far.