ryanpersaud-59415's Reviews

The Beekeeper (2024)

3/10

Laughably, and Enjoyably Dumb, But Takes Itself a Bit Too Seriously.

7 May 2024

I went into The Beekeeper knowing absolutely nothing. I expected a fairly run of the mill Statham action flick, and what I got was...much better. I'm genuinely shocked this movie actually came out in theatres; it looks, sounds, and feels like a straight-to-Netflix film (which is honestly an insult to some of the better action flicks on Netflix).

Statham looks quite tired and checked out here; he probably realized how absolutely absurd this film is and was happy to take a quick pay check. (Side note, he also wears a comically large cap that doesn't quite fit his head and it's absolutely hilarious - you'd expect a movie called the BEEKEEPER would have him kick butt in beekeeping garb, but no...more on that later)

This movie has below average performances and a truly terrible script. Characters will flat out say things in a redundant matter, spell things out for us that genuinely don't need to be, and are paper thin. The plot is like every revenge action film you've ever seen, except this time directed at scam call centres. The way these centres are depicted is...confusing to say the least.

Not only are they based in the United States, but look like Silicon Valley start up offices, and seemingly run by white tech bros, including one whom - I kid you not - is the son of the literal PRESIDENT of the United States. Yes, you read that right. (I guess Jason Statham beating up a bunch of Indians or Nigerians just didn't look right? It's weird.) The aforementioned SOPOTUS is played by Josh Hutchinson. He's clearly having fun, giving perhaps the hammiest performance he's ever given.

I feel like this movie needed a bit more panache and style, but never quite commits to the bit. It dips its toes in being a parody of revenge action flicks, but takes itself too seriously to genuinely be one. If it did, there would be at least ONE bee related kill. I mean, we all expected that, right?

But I have to admit, The Beekeeper is quite a lot of fun. Crossing into so-bad-its-good territory, it's a worthwhile drinking game film with some friends, for sure.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Late Night with the Devil (2023)

6/10

A Fun Time, But Certainly Not the Jaw Dropper the Internet is Saying

30 April 2024

There's a lot to like about Late Night with the Devil; the first being the absolutely fantastic performance of David Dasmalchian as Jack. He really nails the 1970s late night talk show host vibe perfectly and has a lot of wit and charisma, yet an underlying darkness that you know (or I guess hope) will come into play later on.

I also really loved the aesthetic for most of the film, with the grainy, multi camera look, excellent period costuming and hairstyling, and amazing aesthetic touches that drew me in immediately. The film makes great use of practical effects and while it may look a bit silly, I thought it had a charm that was appropriate for the era.

(Side note: The filmmakers opted to use AI for some of the transition cards in the film and it's caused a bit of a stir. To be honest, I don't think this is an application of the technology worth getting angry over. It's a low budget film, AI use is inevitable, and this was probably the least intrusive way to use it)

I also felt really compelled by the story and the structure of the film, which felt longer and meatier (at least for most of it) than it would seem. It moved at a quick pace and I was never bored.

However, I do think this movie wears its numerous flaws on its sleeve. The entire conceit - that this is an unaired episode - should've been stuck with. The movie confusingly switches between the gorgeous 70s talk show style to a baffling black-and-white handheld camera look, which I found necessary for the story, but ultimately confusing by the end of the film when it switches it up completely. Either this is supposed to be "found footage" or it isn't.

I also felt a lot of the performances were pretty subpar, especially the girl playing Lily (Ingrid Torelli) and the woman playing June (Laura Gordon). Torelli just...didn't have the screen presence necessary for the role and her line delivery was baffling. I couldn't make heads or tails of her character and maybe there was stuff left on the cutting room floor, because her character's "journey" through this film was utterly confusing and disappointing. Gordon just did not deliver her lines well. I just didn't buy her at all.

Then there's the ending...which...I can forgive to an extent for being "interpretable," but I can also totally understand feels incoherent. It's almost like when someone writes and essay and it's already 11 pages long so they rush the conclusion. There's no real satisfactory explanation for a lot of the questions you hope the film would answer, which made me wonder why they introduced some plot elements to begin with (i.e. Jack's backstory with the thinly veiled cult). It's not rocket science as to what happened; it's just not given the emotional weight it needs nor the explosive payoff you'd want.

I think this is a fine and fun movie that I'm happy I saw and I'd probably show other people. One question I have is...why on Earth was this released in March and not Halloween, when the film is set? It's bizarre.

7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (2024)

6/10

A Serviceable Sequel, nothing more.

28 April 2024

At the risk of sounding pretentious, after seeing Godzilla: Minus One less than five months ago, my expectation for what a kaiju movie completely changed. Wherein that film was a thoughtful, exciting, and mature take on Godzilla, using the monster as a backdrop for bigger things, Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire...is mostly just monster stuff.

And hey, that's not necessarily a bad thing. People have been clamouring for an American kaiju movie that sets the human characters aside and focuses primarily on the massive creatures that destroy our cities. Godzilla x Kong: TNE does this pretty well; spending the vast majority of its run time in "Hollow Earth", a realm beneath our own where Kong now lives, full of fascinating (and gargantuan) creatures.

My favourite parts of the movie were where the monsters - mostly Kong - interacted with other monsters. It was a surprisingly good showcase of non verbal storytelling that naturally, gives this movie a lot of international appeal.

But, I can't help but feel this movie could be and should be...more? It really does feel like a Kong movie that Godzilla just happens to feature in; his inclusion almost feels unnecessary. Then, of course, there are the human characters.

Minus One PROVED that great human drama and characters are not only possible, but elevate kaiju movies. This one isn't bad; Rebecca Hall and Dan Stevens are fine; Brian Tyree Henry is on the verge of being annoying, but he works. The little girl is really terrible. Somehow, despite have zero spoken dialog, she can't properly convey the emotions she's supposed to be expressing with her face alone. Unintentional hilarity ensues.

There's also more people like her, who are weirdly and inexplicably mute, and in a movie with so much grunting and roaring, I felt that was an odd choice. The lore of the movie is pretty tacked on and doesn't leave much of an impression (it also doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's fine).

Overall, Godzilla x Kong: TNE is FINE. It's nothing particular special, and it's not bad. But I can only hope for the next one, we get a bit more ambition and creativity.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fallout (2024– )

9/10

Lives Up to the Hype. Probably the Best Video Game Adaptation I've Ever Seen.

28 April 2024

I haven't played Fallout, but I'm fairly familiar with the lore, and my brother is a HUGE fan, so I've absorbed some of it. To me, Fallout feels like a special franchise with a lot of cool ideas.. I went into Fallout expecting the worst given that it's a 2020s era adaptation AND a streaming show (this time, on Amazon Prime).

I'm happy to say this thing really won me over. It took an episode or two, but man, I left this first season of Fallout feeling like this was quite possibly the best video game adaptation ever made. It actually makes me optimistic for the future of adaptation; if more movies and shows could do what Fallout did, I don't think audiences would be (as) miffed. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Fallout is so good that it almost seems effortless. Not only is the world building absolutely excellent, with the show drip feeding information at a perfect pace, but it LOOKS awesome too. Multiple times while watching this I jokingly said, "this place would be perfect for the Amazonworld theme park that's inevitably in the works." That's how good so many of these sets were.

The show is excellently paced; it doesn't feel like it's dragging its feet and while it's fairly obvious what the final episode will entail, Fallout manages to keep things fresh and exciting, going in directions I didn't expect. There's about four major storylines and they all intersect from time to time, in a logical and fun way that I felt was a masterclass in storytelling.

It also nailed its tone and never wavered from it, even when it got more intense and dramatic towards the end. It's overall a very funny show that doesn't take itself too seriously, but when it does, it really hits. I think it deftly manages comedy, horror, drama, and suspense really, really well and kept me engaged the entire time.

The characters are also great here, buoyed by some really great performances. Walter Goggins as The Ghoul is undoubtedly the show stopper of the season. He manages to be intimidating, but not comically, and a cold, brutal man who still want to see succeed. I love how by the end of the season, he's not changed all that much, but the context about him has and that makes you, the audience, see him in a new light.

Ella Purnell is also FANTASTIC as Lucy. I'd only seen her in Zach Snyder's Army of the Dead in a truly hilarious role, so I didn't have high expectations. But she's such a perfect and effective protagonist, with her naivety leading to some of the show's best moments. She grows a lot through the course of the show, yet, similar to The Ghoul, still retains what makes her the character we came to love. I also really liked Aaron Moten as Maximus; he has a nervous energy that I felt worked very well. He can be competent and capable, but not so much so where it feels alienating. He really is the closest to a "normal" person we meet the entire show, which might not be the highest praise, but I was always rooting for him.

There are just so many great choices in this series. I love how each of the three protagonists represents something about humanity: Moten's Maximus the well meaning everyman who, like most of us, will do bad things if it means survival. The Ghoul represents humanity lost, and the result when pure self-interest and cynicism take over. And Lucy idealism and civility; tested, of course, but still there at the end of the day.

Then there's the litany of fantastic side characters and bit roles; the amazing 50s aesthetic and music, the compelling mystery and oh, I didn't even mention Moises Arias and his excellent arc and character, Norm. (After the first episode, I kinda hoped that was the last we'd seen of the vaults, but man, they were some of the best stuff from this season) The whole mini story in Vault 4 was phenomenal; it's was a masterclass in foreshadowing and exploring theme, whilst giving us some hilarious moments and great relationship building for Lucy and Maximus.

As for complaints, I do think some of the CG is a bit shody. I didn't love how the Knights of the Brothers of Steel looked and there some moments of rubbery, ugly CG that took me out of the show. I didn't love Maximus's storyline by itself, but I found it left A LOT of room for more in the future.

Yeah, watch this thing. Just watch it. It's excellent. It won me over, and it makes me want to play the games. What higher praise for a video game adaptation is there?

18 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Baby Reindeer (2024)

9/10

A dark, but fascinating and emotionally powerful autobiography put to screen.

21 April 2024

Baby Reindeer starts off like almost any other streaming true crime story does; with a compelling premise, flashy editing, and the promise of something greater. The story of Donny (Richard Gaad - playing a version of himself) and his stalker, Martha (Jessica Gunning) is by itself inherently interesting. But it's the auto-bigraphical, raw emotional exploration that Baby Reindeer becomes that I really fell enjoyed.

It's a show that isn't afraid to ask tough and complicated questions, and come up with uneasy and often taboo answers. It's a show that reminds you why the long form nature of miniseries is quite possibly the best way to explore people and their complicated interior and exterior lives. It's a show buoyed by fantastic editing, performances, and writing.

Richard Gaad is truly remarkable in this show, in what becomes an increasingly difficult watch as it goes on, knowing that a lot of this stuff is based on his own experiences. It's almost like sitting in on a therapy session and the show invites you to not just "root" for his character, but question him. Interrogate him. Hold him accountable. He certainly does and if self-deprecation isn't your thing, you'll most likely hate this show.

Jessica Gunning represents the part of the show I think most people will enjoy more, the more conventional aspect of the story, and my God, does she deliver. Martha is a tour-de-force in this show; a perplexing, fascinating, and sometimes terrifying character who will immediately shut up any person who assumes that it's "impossible" for men to be abused. She herself is treated with a surprising level of empathy and care and her presence is everywhere in this show, even when she isn't on screen.

I've seen some people complain that this show needed to be funnier, and I really disagree with that. It has the characteristically dry and sardonic humour associated with the United Kingdom; I think it's probably one of the best examples of how *different* British humour is from American humour. I also feel like that stand-up scenes brilliantly reflect that old adage: "in the US, the audience laughs to help the comedian out. In the UK, the audience needs you to earn that laugh."

I do think the show suffers from some pacing issues, with it packing more than it needed to into the final episode to finish everything off. There are a lot of threads that I think could've been explored more and some questions that I wish we got some answers to, particularly regarding Martha.

But, I can't deny that Baby Reindeer really evokes the feeling of a great auto-biographical novel put to screen. Even Donny's narration - something that typically doesn't work in film - really adds a lot of texture and context to everything we see. This is a series that needed it, and that's it's great to see that aspect of the story done well.

Best Episode: Four. I mean, come on. It's a brilliantly done, incredibly powerful episode that really transforms the rest of the show.

Worst Episode: Six. I just felt this one felt like a filler episode, and while cute, could've been a bit longer and given us more for the finale.

8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Monkey Man (2024)

6/10

Good Debut, But Lacking a Little Sauce

15 April 2024

Dev Patel is probably one of the most likeable actors out there and someone extremely easy to root for. I'm happy to say his directorial debut is certainly an impressive one; an ode to Western and East Asian action flicks with A LOT of Indian flair. Monkey Man isn't afraid to delve into the seedy underbelly of the world's most populous country, even if it's a bit thin on exactly what's going on (more on that later). I liked that dark and gritty vibe quite a lot.

Cinematographically, this translates to some very intense and brutal action scenes, with a couple of really stand out sequences (the kitchen fight sticks out to me). I've been told time and time again how violent and gory this movie is, but to be honest, I've seen far bloodier, even from India. Patel certainly gets his butt kicked and kicks a lot of butts though; this is not a John Wick style superhuman facing off against nameless thugs.

I also really liked the editing and needle drops in this movie; many of which felt so appropriate and elevated a lot of scenes. I didn't expect to hear 151 Rum by Jid in a movie set in India, and now that I have, I can't believe it hadn't been done before. The music is just excellent in this film overall.

Unfortunately, while I think Patel does a great job as our nameless protagonist and is clearly physically quite talented, the excess of shaky cam definitely bothered me and made it hard to understand what was going on a lot of the time. Maybe it was a budgetary issue and it certainly had to do with the overall "vibe" of the film, but it was quite distracting.

I also felt that despite this film being 2 hours long, the plot was a little too thin for my liking. Characters you hope to see a bit more (Alphonso being probably the first to come to mind) just sort of disappear into the background and while we get bits and pieces of the larger story at work, I wish we could've leaned even more into that.

For those unfamiliar, this film does not provide a flattering view of the Indian government and clearly takes a stance against the current Modi administration and his BJP party, widely characterized as a "right wing, Hindu nationalist" party. While I think the film wisely chose not to take the deep dive into that, I think some broader context as to what actually happened and why for the inciting incident would've been helpful. It kind of irks me when films want to be political, but then draw back at the last second.

Overall, I liked Monkey Man, but as someone who's seen many action films from India, I can't say it blew my mind. I wish there were some elements emphasized a bit more, I wish the plot was a bit thicker, and the cinematography more professional. But, Patel's debut is a fine one and I only think he can improve from here.

5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The First Omen (2024)

8/10

The First Omen isn't Immaculate, it's actually better.

9 April 2024

It's nice to see the Twin Movie phenomenon lives on (and apparently, is way more common than people acknowledge). Rarely though, are two films with EXTREMELY similar premises released so close together (Immaculate came out around Easter 2024, just a few weeks before this).

It's actually a fantastic opportunity to compare two takes on what is, essentially, the same story. I think Immaculate is a fine movie and the Sweeney connection and superior marketing will make it a larger success in the end. But, The First Omen, amazingly, is the better movie. Call it a surprise because rarely do these sort of movies - unnecessary entries into iconic 20th century horror franchises - really turn out well. (See, Exorcist Believer)

The First Omen, in contrast, feels like a worthy successor to the original Omen from 1976. Director Arkasha Stevenson has done something truly remarkable here; for the in-the-know movie nuts, the 1970s represents a unique and audacious era of American filmmaking that thankfully, we've begun to appreciate again. Stevenson doesn't just mimic the 1970s, but along with cinematographer Aron Morton and the entire team, RECREATES the style of 70s horror that the original Omen was such a pivotal part of. I love how we've begun to take the best aspects of the era and combined it with the technical sophistication of today.

Another thing I have to commend (and weirdly, a big issue I had with Immaculate), is the sound design. My God, is this movie worth seeing in a theater. The way the sound envelops you, the haunting whispering and chanting, the oppressive music...it feels like you're surrounded by evil and especially towards the end, creates and incredibly intense atmosphere.

That's really what this movie excels at; it expertly conveys a descent in madness and reflects the paranoia and terror of the situation extremely well. In no small part due to lead actress Nell Tiger Free, who, I have to say, blows Sydney Sweeney out of the water here with a passionate, physical, and (hopefully) star making turn. Again, especially towards the end, she does some truly amazing things. But, the entire cast is truly excellent as well; there's not a bad performance here - although I will admit the obligatory Italian friend Luz (Maria Caballero) does deliver some wonky lines here and there. Also, special shout out to Ishtar Currie-Wilson, whose relatively small role in this film is INCREDIBLE and terrifying.

As for problems with The First Omen, I do think the first half is undoubtedly the weaker one, and there are some unnecessary jump scares probably studio mandated to keep audiences "engaged." And while the final sequence of the film is amazing, the ending itself is a bit...well, let's just say, Marvelized. There's some unnecessary lore added to the Omen and a way-too-obvious reference that I just felt didn't need to be there.

In the great 2024 "nun horror" battle, The First Omen is undoubtedly the stronger movie. I think it conveys its themes of religious oppression and women's bodily autonomy better, it's scarier, it has better performances, and really captures the feel of the Omen. This is destined to be a Halloween classic.

16 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Titane (2021)

8/10

Metal, Blood, and Bonding

7 April 2024

This movie is not going to be for everyone. I'm sure that a lot of people will have turned this movie off at a particular scene of human-automobile coitus and shrugged this film off as another "weird foreign movie."

This is not an easy watch; Titane can be disturbing, violent, gross, and uncomfortable at times. But it's also exhilarating. What I appreciate the most about French (and frankly, international) cinema is that there's comfortability with the uncomfortable. This is not a movie that aims to please everyone, but it has a story to tell and ideas to convey, some of which are complicated and messy.

And yes, the weirdness is integral to this; Titane seeks to break down and examine societal norms around family, love, identity, and gender roles, and the bizarre storyline is a vehicle (pun intended) that allows us to do that. What's the point of cinema if we can't explore things off the beaten path?

There's so much this movie is about and so much I could say; but it all starts with the truly INCREDIBLE performances, specifically from Agatha Rouselle as our anti-hero, Alexia. She conveys an appropriate alien like demeanour; clearly disconnected from humanity and unable to connect with others. She's such an incredibly complex and layered character with so many facets. What's remarkable is that she does this with very little dialog. Her two solo dancing scenes as well (I mean, all of the dancing scenes really, and the music) were such excellent ways to convey deeper aspects of her character. She's a person who, as cold and heartless as she is, clearly craves human attention.

In contrast, Vincent Lindon as Vincent the firefighter is the exact opposite. He plays a character BURSTING with emotion, someone warm and kind, yet troubled and lacking in so many ways. His performance is the heart and soul of this film and many of its ideas are conveyed through him. His character essentially provides the thesis statement for the ultimate message of this film: love is the answer. Stripped away from societal expectations, from changing bodies, from haunted pasts, love is a guiding force that can help us deal with change and those different from us.

Could Titane's two halves - not literally, but I mean, thematically - have had a BIT more connective tissue? Yes. It does feel like a somewhat disjointed film, that could've had a different first act and been the same film.

I also felt that while the message and ideas of the film are well thought out, it does forget one kind of huge aspect that I think most people watching this film picked up on without even thinking about it: justice. It's nice that Alexia is loved and accepted? Sure. Is it also true she murders at least three perfectly innocent people in cold blood for no reason and should probably be held accountable? Sometimes, love isn't enough, and I appreciate that the film doesn't ask us to agree with its statement (Vincent is explicitly portrayed as a DAMAGED person, especially in the scene with the forest fire), but the lack of justice does muddy the message a bit.

Overall though, Titane is a fantastic example of grown up, audacious film making. As odd and off kilter as it is, it's a great example as to why, even if not as commercially successful, French cinema is so valuable to the world. Check this out, and keep an open mind!

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Immaculate (2024)

6/10

Sweeney gives it her all in this nice little ode to Giallo

29 March 2024

If I could describe what I liked most about Immaculate, its the film's tone and pacing. This is a movie that looks like a slow burn horror film of the 2010s/20s (think, the Blackcoat's Daughter or Saint Maud), visually stunning and very well shot, with a truly gorgeous set. Yet, it sort of has the pacing of a studio horror film, like you'd expect from Blumhouse. It was actually a nice surprise, as I was totally expecting the former.

I also really liked this movie's ambition as an earnest ode to Italian Giallo films and surprising goriness. This is a pretty messed up movie and I like that it actually *goes there*, you know? This movie more than earns its R rating and isn't some teeny bopper fare, despite the obvious marketing inclusion of Sydney Sweeney.

Sweeney, for her part, does a fine job here. I feel like she sometimes has an issue with enunciation. But that was mostly gone in this movie. Particularly in the first bit, she feels perfectly cast as this doe eyed, gorgeous, innocent girl about to be wrapped up in something sinister. Chronically online (mostly) women complain about her overuse of sex appeal, and yes, while I can confirm, the girls are out in this one (hallelujah), you have to give her credit for how...let's just say, de-sexualized she gets in this film. Just face it, Sweeney is a Hollywood archetype we don't see a lot of anymore, and I'm here for it.

The movie does fall flat in some areas though. One is weirdly, the sound design. Despite moments of truly fantastic sound design, towards the end the sound and music almost felt muffled and needed a bit more oopmh. Weird thing to criticize, but it was noticeable.

I also think - and this will be what turns most people off - the thin plot needs a bit of work. There's a pretty massive revelation in this film that is conceptually interesting, but so out there that it needs more than just a few lines of dialog to explain it. I don't think films need to OVEREXPLAIN things, but I felt like we needed a bit more time to sit with it before moving on.

There were also moments in this film that played with some of the surrealism associated with Giallo, but not enough in my opinion. A striking image (red, you'll know what I mean) could've been more prominent and become something kind of iconic.

Overall though, I liked Immaculate quite a bit. It has some interesting thematic elements, Sweeney gives a solid performance, it's messed up, it looks good, and at a sweet 89 minutes, it isn't a time sink. A pretty solid way to really start the 2024 horror calendar.

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)

8/10

A Fitting End to Cinema's Most Iconic Trilogy.

28 March 2024

Return of the Jedi is widely agreed to be the worst of the original Star Wars trilogy. With forty odd years of this context in mind, I was struck by how much I really enjoyed this movie.

It all starts with the makeup and visual effects. My God. It's been striking seeing how Star Wars went from a clearly lower budgeted independent film to what would've been the pinnacle of movie magic in the span of six(ish) years. The Jim Henson partnership really paid off; this film has objectively some of the most convincing, well designed, and impressive animatronic puppetry I've ever seen. The makeup for so many of these alien characters gives the universe a lively feeling and a sense that there's so much more to the world of Star Wars than we get to see.

It's also a film chock full of fantastic action and set pieces, and I can't deny how much better a lot of the action is, even compared to the Empire Strikes Back. The opening stretch is iconic; full of kooky alien characters, giant monsters, a fantastic reunion between our characters, and the movie never really lets up from there. The final space battle and confrontation on Endor are great, as is everything between Luke, Vader, and the Emperor.

There's a lot to love about this movie. However, it does represent a tonal shift that I think threw a lot of people off. The Ewoks are...controversial for a reason, even if I didn't mind them initially, I could see how someone expecting the "sequel" to the Empire Strikes Back may find them somewhat grating and distracting. I mean, could we have cut down on them a bit to give us more of Yoda? Sure, and it'd probably be the right decision.

I also think the "reveal" of Leia as Luke's sister kind of went nowhere, and really only serves as a hall pass for Han to boink her without guilt - that's a funny sentence, I know, but realistically, that's the only thing that comes out of it in this movie.

And yes, we can't ignore the COPIOUS "updates" made to this movie courtesy of the 90s re-release. It probably has the most egregious example of this, right at the beginning (the infamous musical number, the obviously CG beak given to the Sarlaac). A lot of these added visuals simply don't match the style of the rest of the movie and unfortunately, original and remastered versions of this and the other two original trilogy films are really hard to come by. But, they're not all bad and in fact, I think this movie has the best example of the "retooling" process working right: including Hayden Christensen's Anakin at the end. It brings the entire saga together and actually makes a lot more sense thematically.

Despite its obvious flaws, I can't help but love this movie. This is all subjective, but this was one was my favourite as a kid, and I'm sure it was for a lot of other kids who saw these movies. At the end of the day, it's a film with so much legendary iconography, it perfectly wraps up the series (with an astonishingly simple story), and is just a joy to watch. What more could a young Jedi ask for?

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

10/10

The Film That Truly MADE Star Wars. The template for a perfect sequel.

21 March 2024

It's 1980. For three years, you've been eagerly anticipating the sequel to Star Wars, a film that almost immediately becomes a fixture of pop culture. In this pre-internet age, all you can rely on are interviews given by George Lucas and discussions with other fans in basements, comic book stores, school grounds etc.

And then, The Empire Strikes Back comes out. I don't think it's exaggeration to say that without this movie, Star Wars wouldn't be what it is. Sure, the first movie is a masterpiece and transfixed audiences immediately. But THIS is what I think of when I think of Star Wars. The world George Lucas introduced us to in 1977 feels far larger, lusher, and more lived in this time around.

Whereas the first was undoubtedly a low budget, yet ambitious movie, this one feels BIG from the opening moments of the film. The costumes are better. The set design is better. The effects are better. The performances are better. The writing is better. Everything feels so much more elevated. It's also an objectively better shot movie; while the first has iconic moments, it doesn't have a ton of awe inspiring shots or imagery. This one? I think the final battle with Luke and Vader - especially in the beginning - is one of the most visually striking moments put to film.

The set design feels elevated as well; Hoth, Dagobah, and Cloud City show us so much more of the galaxy of Star Wars than the first one did. I also feel like the performances are way more confident; Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher have electric chemistry and their romance is so well done (also, note to the guys: all women like good men who can be scoundrels sometimes, it's not that hard). Mark Hamill gives a far more nuanced and complex performance this time around as Luke; you see so much more of his flaws as a human being, especially when contrasted with Yoda (whose first appearance is still his best).

And then, there's Darth Vader. Thematically, he almost feels like the main character. Vader was cool in the first one. In this one though, he feels like a character from myth. The way everyone looks at him with fear, the screen presence he carries, the power he wields. Darth Vader BECAME one of cinema's greatest villains because of this movie. And let's be real, the twist this movie provides (I don't want some kid who's never seen this movie to have it ruined via internet review - as irrational as it is) is probably the gold standard in cinema. Right? The single most iconic twist in film history.

If you couldn't tell, this is my favourite Star Wars film (not a radical opinion, obviously). To me, it encapsulates everything great about Star Wars and is truly one of the greatest sequels of all time. There's a reason why every great sequel is compared to The Empire Strikes Back. It expands upon the first, improves upon it, and leaves us wanting more. It's a perfect movie.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

9/10

I mean, it's Star Wars

21 March 2024

I haven't actually sat down and watched the original (ish) Star Wars in years, but its probably - let's be honest, along with its sequels - the most culturally ubiquitous American film of all time. You don't need to have WATCHED Star Wars to know basically everything about it; every character, plot beat, costuming or set design choice is so beloved and iconic that it's sometimes hard to actually sit down and watch this as a movie.

Take yourself back to 1977, before Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, Han Solo or R2D2 were household names. This is a genuinely fantastic action adventure film; the perfect mix of a rousing, exciting time and the promise of A LOT more. Yet, it's also impossible not to be charmed by how quaint this movie is; it was never a high budget film and you can tell. But there's so much creativity and energy on display here.

It's a sci fi epic with the energy of an indie movie and that's something honestly very special. I can't imagine a film on this scale coming out today with an equivalent budget and being as universally accepted. I also appreciate that this movie feels like a pastiche of so much of the pop culture that came before. Adventure serials, Westerns, samurai films, fantasy epics...it has elements from all of them and the sum is truly greater than its parts.

Luke (Mark Hamill), Leia (Carrie Fisher), and Han Solo (Harrison Ford )are the perfect filmic adventure trio and have undeniable chemistry from the get go. But I also think characters like Chewbacca, R2D2, and C3P0 (the latter two get way more screen time than I remember - essentially they're the focus for the first 10-15 minutes) add not only to the "spaciness" of the film, but imbue it with so much heart.

Honestly, it's easier to just pick out this movie's flaws than to go down a list of what it does right, because that's basically everything else. George Lucas has sort of robbed us of the ability to watch these movies in their original glory (enabled now by Disney) and I think it's an objective knock on the film. The first bit on Tatooine is rife with ugly and out-of-place CG and it definitely takes you out of the film. Case and point: R2D2 and C3PO are frequently dirty and covered with finger prints throughout this movie. This, ironically, makes them look more real and believable than the undoubtedly spotless version a CG creation would be.

Yes, the final fight between Vader and Obi Wan is kind of underwhelming. The choreography is objectively bad and it also doesn't make a ton of sense as to why it ends the way it does...let's chalk this up to George Lucas and co finding their footing.

Aside from that, what can I say? It's Star Wars. It's one of the most important films of all time and a genuine masterpiece. If you haven't seen it, we can't be friends.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Voyeurs (2021)

5/10

Elevated Trashiness, But Falls Short With a Truly Terrible Final Act.

18 March 2024

Is this a good movie? Honestly, I'm not sure. The Voyeurs is in a lot of ways, a movie I'd like. Erotic thrillers are few and far between nowadays (at least from America), and having one that isn't afraid of nudity or taboo subject matter is an objective good.

Yes, I'll be the first to admit. Sydney Sweeney baring all for extended periods of this movie is a highlight; I think that's part of the story's messaging. A sort of meta textual commentary on how a lot of men in the audience saw that this was an R rated erotic thriller starring one of Hollywood's hottest young stars and immediately clicked for that alone. Or, that it proudly wears its sleeve and is as trashy as these movies are SUPPOSED to be.

When this movie is at its best, it's an interesting exploration of the morality of voyeurism; how much is too much? It also delves into the way we project upon other people when dissatisfied with our own lives and gender relations. We see Sydney Sweeney's Pippa fall deeper into a sexual fetish, while making her partner uncomfortable. I liked the subtext, even if the film is extremely unsubtle about the way it communicates the idea.

I think unfortunately, some of this is betrayed by a lack of tension, sexual or otherwise. There's something off about the way this movie is paced, by the romantic comedy-ish side characters, and I'm sorry to say, the generally poor performances of all four of our leads.

Sweeney plays a shy, awkward girl well...but has trouble making me buy the emotions she's supposed to portray. Justice Thomas, who plays her boyfriend, puts on a distractingly deep voice and his character kind of trails off towards the end. And the peeped upon characters, Brent (Ben Hardy) and Margot (Natasha Burdozzo) have barely any characterization at all, aside from the most basic things we could know about them.

Then...there's the film's twist. While it's not implausible and helps the narrative to an extent, it does seemingly come out of nowhere because there's no appropriate cat and mouse or mystery that would logically lead us there. The final act feels so divorced from the rest of the movie. What was initially an interesting film that challenges the typical narrative of the "Rear Window" inspired fable becomes cartoonish, as it stops being a movie for adults and genuinely becomes a silly Lifetime thriller.

As it stands, I'm happy this movie exists, and oh boy, is it better than the last Amazon erotic thriller I saw, Deep Water. But I do think it was a missed opportunity. (Also, why set your film in Montreal, Quebec and have NO French aspect to it as all? As one of the characters said, it's basically f-city.)

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl 3-D (2005)

1/10

A movie so bad, it needs to be studied.

16 March 2024

Sharkboy and Lava Girl has achieved a level of infamy few other children's films really reach. This movie is so bad, so ugly, so tremendously incompetent that it's honestly worth studying. Look, I love Robert Rodriguez as a director. I think he's a man with a lot of passion, vision, and drive, and I respect his dedication to film and doing a lot of stuff himself.

But...it takes a special kind of hubris to take your child's insane ramblings (sorry, I mean..."dreams") and turn it into a full length feature film. To be fair, this film does feel like a child wrote it; it's so nonsensical and often, incomprehensible, I genuinely believe Racer Max Rodriguez (yes, his child's honest-to-God name) had a role in the writer's room.

The two worst things about this movie are its visuals and its performances. This thing is truly an assault on the eyes; it's got some of the ugliest CG I have ever seen and honestly looks like a parody film you'd find on YouTube. The backgrounds, the action, the CG characters all look unacceptably bad for a film from 2005 and come off sometimes actually horrific. (That Lava Girl-as-lava image is indelibly burned in my mind now)

Most of the time, the film's primarily child actors (except the boy who plays Linus - he rules) don't seem to understand what they're supposed to be seeing and acting against. It leads to some truly hilarious moments, like when Lava Girl and Sharkboy are looking in different directions while talking to the same person or the actors don't get what emotion they're supposed to convey.

To be fair, most of the adults are also pretty bad here as well; there's a scene where Kristin Davis and David Arquette (our protagonist Max's parents) are supposed to be giants and eating from..."the land of cookies and milk." Arquette holds the cookie in the palm of his hand and eats it, essentially confirming he had no idea what he was supposed to be doing.

This movie is so full of awkward and cringe inducing moments, yet you can't even give Rodriguez credit for being imaginative. This is such a predictable and paint by numbers story, and the world that we enter isn't even that interesting. We have...giant plug monsters and "trains of thought" and the aforementioned giant dessert world...is this really as creative as it could've been?

As it stands, this movie is truly awful. But so bad, it's genuinely hilarious. You need to watch it, preferably under the influence of something.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Anatomy of a Fall (2023)

8/10

A bit plodding at times, but overall a really good legal thriller and character study.

11 March 2024

Who doesn't love a good legal drama? Anatomy of a Fall follows Sandra Voyter (Sandra Hüller), a successful novelist living the small French village of Grenoble, with her husband Samuel Malesiki (Samuel Theis) and their son, Daniel (Milo Machado Graner), who suffers from blindness as a result of an accident. One day, Samuel is found dead outside of the home, and immediately, suspicion is cast upon Sandra. The film follows the investigation and court proceedings, and the impact this has the characters' personal lives and relationships.

Anatomy of the Fall is long, mostly subtitled (although there's a healthy dose of English, as Sandra - both in real life and her character - is German and her French isn't as good), and sometimes plodding. I can totally see people checking out of this movie, but I think it's one of those films that really rewards patience. It's about a lot of thing and interestingly, I could contrast this movie with May/December in that it examines and deconstructs "true crime" as a genre, just in a far more serious and dramatic way. We often forget these are real people with real lives that we're talking about.

This is communicated perhaps most potently by Sandra Hüller and Milo Machado Graner, whom are truly incredible in this. I was really surprised by Graner, who delivers a truly remarkable and powerhouse performance here, especially towards the end. To those who bemoan child actors, watch this movie. THIS is a child actor at his absolute best.

I also really loved how this film drip feeds information about the family and the story; the scene is set up pretty well in the beginning, with lots of little odd details that come into play later (best of which is the rendition of 50 Cent's P. I. M. P that has a surprisingly important role in the story). Just like any salacious trial of public interest, there are always twists and turns that come up and I felt the film captured that really well.

Also, for law nerds in the audience, I personally don't know if this is an accurate depiction of the French legal system or not, but it certainly is a compelling one. I found myself really interested in the more inquistorial aspect of it all; where the judges seem to play more of a "fact finding" role more than a "neutral mediator" role, more akin to the Anglo-American common law system.

Yeah, this is a really good movie; I do think it has some issues with pacing and takes a little while to get going. It's competently made and very intelligent, but to use a comparison to a film I mentioned before (May/December), I think a bit more stylization and energy would've benefitted it. But certainly a recommendation and one of those films that you couldn't really imagine being made in the USA nowadays.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Imaginary (2024)

4/10

The bones of a good movie and concept are here, the execution is not.

9 March 2024

Ah yes, it's the first quarter of the year, so naturally, we have low budget Blumhouse horror movies! Imaginary is the latest from the (historically) iconic horror studio, and like many of their recent films, I find it hard to totally recommend this one.

Imaginary has a lot of good and a lot of bad. There's a point in the movie (I guess you could call it a twist) where I think the film picked up narratively and the filmmaker's imagination (pun intended) is on full display. To be clear, while it's obviously a bit lower budget, I did generally like the final act of this film. It went from a paint by numbers haunted house movie to something far more interesting.

I have to give this film credit for making a teddy bear an intimidating horror icon. Laugh at me all you want, but this bear got creepy. And I could totally see a slew of good-to-bad sequels using this concept going forward. There are some strange and interesting ideas and visuals in this movie that I genuinely (and surprisingly) really liked.

However...I can't deny that for the bulk of this movie, it's pretty bad. The dialog is honestly terrible. Everyone just sort of states their emotions out loud and there's zero confidence in the audience to understand these objectively simplistic characters. It's also frankly...not scary. There was not a single tense moment in this movie, it overuses jump scares, and builds no atmosphere. The least they could've done was shoot most of the movie at night, but for some inexplicable reason, it takes place entirely during the day and just exudes no dread or horror at all. (Not saying you can't do that, just you know, Jeff Wadlow is no Ari Aster)

The performances also range from passable to actively bad; look, there are a lot of good child actors out there, and Pyper Braun isn't one of them. She seemingly forgot what tone she's supposed to convey in large parts of this movie; sometimes speaking in a way that sounds like she's just reading lines for memorization or conveying a completely different character from the prior scene. It's kind of funny.

There's also this woman played by Betty Buckley whose dialog, sound mixing, and performance were truly hilarious. Every time she spoke, she honestly sounded louder than everyone else in the movie, and huffed and puffed her way through every line. Glorious.

There's also a surprising amount of world building in this movie that could've been delivered a bit better. I can understand and respect the ambition, even if the execution is lagging. I can't see this movie doing well, but maybe with different people involved, we can get the imaginary friend horror movie we deserve.

5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dune (1984)

4/10

Exudes the lameness of a 1980s sci fi geek, but has its charms.

9 March 2024

Dune (1984) is bad. Like truly bad. It's a mix of 80s corniness and Lynchian weirdness, with inexplicable, awkward decisions abound and on-the-nose, cheesy dialog that beguiles understanding. The pace at which this movie moves is absolutely bizarre; for example, Paul is accepted by the Fremen for seemingly no reason and falls in love with Chani just because.

People wouldn't accept a lot of the things that happen in this movie if it were from a film today. I firmly believe that a lot of the positive reviews here are solely because of nostalgia goggles. We're harsher on new movies. In short, Dune (1984) can come off as pretty lame; I can't imagine a 1980s boy taking a 1980s girl to this movie and having that be a successful date, you know?

It's the kind of movie that makes you realize why people were picked on for liking sci fi back in the day; you see, Denis Villeneuve's Dune films are objectively cool. They exude coolness. David Lynch's take on Dune exudes lameness. It's cheesy, it's strange, it's lame.

And yet...as a genre film geek myself, I can't deny there is some undeniable charm, mostly in the "so bad it's good" territory. Seeing the Harkonnens cackle like moustache twirling villains was absolutely hilarious. Seeing Stilgar immediately trust Paul and Jessica after a simple incapacitating self defense move, was also, absolutely hilarious.

A lot of the performances are just so terrible in this movie. I haven't read Dune, and maybe the awkward, stilted dialog is accurate. But the overly theatrical way everyone speaks makes it hard to take anything seriously.

There are some genuinely good things about this movie. For the time, it did a great job with the sets and much of the costuming. Yes, it's dated, but it's ambitious and i have to give it credit for that. The practical effects are also quite impressive, especially the sandworms and the um...big space baby? I don't know. I also can't deny at times, Lynch's sense of weirdness just works. His style is so esoteric and strange, it almost feels like an alien made this movie. For a sprawling, cosmic epic, it's a unique take.

But I also can't deny there's a lot of nonsense here too. I'm happy to say while I respect this movie, we have better on screen Dunes now.

2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (2023)

6/10

Fun enough, but not good enough.

4 March 2024

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom came out way too late and frankly, it was way too little to save the moribund DC Extended Universe. That being said, similar to the original, it's hard to really *hate* this movie. James Wan does a lot of things very, very well and I appreciate that unlike Marvel (although, I suspect this will change), his stamp is all over this movie.

There's one sequence where Aquaman (Jason Momoa) and his Loki-esque brother Orm (Patrick Wilson) are fighting in an undersea laboratory that reminded me a lot of 12 Monkeys. Moments like that make Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom worth watching. Wan and cinematographer Don Burgess have the camera whizzing and wirring all over the place in a style reminiscent of video games, and it works. For the most part.

This movie, like the last one, is at its best when its weird. There's a confidence to the movie that I really enjoyed; a film where Nicole Kidman acts alongside a giant crab man, where people's homes are made of reefs and skyscrapers are giant jellyfish. Where ancient zombie people left behind after the Sahara dried up and became a desert house undersea prisoners. When this movie is at its weirdest, it's a lot of fun.

Wan also knows how to keep it light and give us a feel good adventure movie, and I can't deny that Momoa and Wilson have excellent chemistry. I do acknowledge though...a lot of this was trodden by Thor and Loki from the MCU. It's very similar to the point of ripping it off.

Unfortunately, the problems don't end there. From Amber Heard (conspicuously and hilariously absent through most of this film, although I have to admit, she rocks that Meera outfit VERY well) to Dolph Lundgren (who's doing his best but comes off as a frat guy attempting a Swedish accent) to Yahya Abdul Mateen (who lacks the menace factor to truly make Black Manta work), the acting in this movie is underwelming.

Even Momoa, the heart and soul of this franchise, comes off a bit too dumb and goofy. They decided to go full Thor: Love and Thunder with him, and aspects of this movie actually make it feel like they didn't really care about the preceding events of other films. (For example, why does the movie rip off the classic ending from Iron Man again? In universe, EVERYONE knows who Aquaman is). I wouldn't say he's as bad at the last depiction of Thor, but he's not far off.

The CG is also quite choppy at times; sometimes looking fantastic and at other moments looking absolutely terrible. Anytime the characters are CG and doing something (specifically, I'm thinking of a part with Meera in this big underwater action scene in the middle), they look BARELY any better than Spiderman in 2002. It's mind blowing considering the budget and I'm probably a bit biased, JUST having seen Dune.

Overall, this is a fun movie that's worth watching, even if it feels like somewhat of a let down considering the original and what it represents, as the final DCEU movie. While I overall like Jason Momoa as Aquaman, I feel like he existed in an overarching franchise that didn't have enough direction to really do him right.

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dune: Part Two (2024)

9/10

The sort of movie that makes you believe in the blockbuster again.

4 March 2024

Warning: Spoilers

2023 was widely seen as the year the blockbuster died (I think that's hyperbolic, but let's go with it). A year with more flops than successes, a lot of audiences seemed to finally reject the endless stream of sequels, requels, and adaptations we'd gotten so accustomed to. And then, you have Dune Part II.

If anything, this movie proves that it's not "adaptation" that's the problem. It's having a purpose to doing it. I can't think of a more relevant property (and one that deserves proper cinematic treatment) than Dune. To be clear, I haven't even read the books, only gleaming what I know about them from pop culture, but like all great adaptations, now I want to read the series.

Where do I even start with Dune Part II? It's a gorgeous spectacle with richly layered characters and amazing performances; chock full of thought provoking ideas. This is a movie that reminds you why film - I'm just calling it here - is the best medium for storytelling. It combines every other aspect of art into a singular product. Visually and sonically, Dune Part II is on another level. I was lucky enough to see this thing in IMAX and it was truly worth it. Some frames look like paintings and there are gorgeous images that I'm still ruminating on a day after. The entire sequence of Geidi Prime, with the monochrome lighting, was such a perfect examples of how you can use the genre of science fiction to do something truly astounding visually. Having also recently seen Madame Web, this movie really made me appreciate great sound design and engineering.

Another thing I have to highlight is the film's amazing editing. There's a lot of moving parts in this movie and a lot that apparently had to be cut. While it's not entirely perfect and some things are gleamed over (more on that later), I have to applaud the editors for making this unwieldy, massive story so digestible.

But, the thing that really sets Dune Part II apart (even from its predecessors) are the characters, themes, and performances. Every character here - for the most part - is better than in the original, the mark of a great sequel. If you felt the original film felt "cold" and lacking in humanity, this movie is the exact opposite (not to mention the seemingly thousands of extras - although I'm sure they're mostly CG at this point). There's so much humanity here; so many relationships and ideas about people explored and enriched.

Timothee Chalemet may have delivered his defining performance in this movie. His Paul Atreides perfectly conveys the complex and nuanced character he's supposed to be; a boy turned man who is torn between his sense of justice and kindess, and the reality of power. He really delivers a powerhouse of a performance here.

Zendaya is also absolutely awesome in this movie. I loved the ideas and perspectives her character represented and she's entirely believable, as is her relationship with Paul. She's the best example of a female action hero; tough and competent, but not devoid of emotion or longing. Javier Bardem's Stilgar was one character who also really surprised me; he represents the Fremen who genuinely and passionately believe in Paul, yet he's never presented a "stupid" person or naïve. He and Zendaya's characters are thankfully, super important to the narrative.

Then there's Austin Butler as Feyd Rautha. This is a performance akin to that of Colin Farrell as the Penguin; Butler completely disappears into the role and as murderous as he is, I wanted to see more of him. (Kudos to Villeneuve for having a character like this in a PG-13 film) I was also really impressed by Rebecca Ferguson as Paul's mother, Lady Jessica. Her character conflict in the first didn't really jive well with me, and I'm happy to say she's so much better in this one as a more sinister figure. Really, her decision to tie her political ambitions with her personal wishes reminded me of a less obviously evil Cersei Lannister. And, while his role isn't as big in this one, I can't get enough as Stellan Skarsgard as Vladimir Harkonnen. He's amazing and has so much screen presence.

Fundamentally, Dune Part II tackles difficult questions and provides nuanced answers. It's about power and the way it manifests, and to all those who say it's essentially a repackaged "white saviour" trope, I feel need to improve their media literacy. Did you watch the movie? I can't think of a film that interrogates and deconstructs this idea more than this one.

The movie isn't entirely perfect. I feel that especially towards the end, a lot of things were rushed through, but I understand that heading towards the end of a nearly 3 hour movie, it's hard to justify MORE content. Overall though, believe the hype. Everything about this movie is tip top: the visuals, the costumes (my God, the costumes), the editing, the sound, the acting, the writing, the choreography (I didn't even mention the myriad of amazing set pieces)...yeah, this is blockbuster filmmaking at its finest. Denis Villeneuve is the real Lisan-al Ghaib at this point.

8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Spaceman (I) (2024)

6/10

In space, no one can hear you ruminate

3 March 2024

Warning: Spoilers

Spaceman is the type of movie you wouldn't see in theatres anymore - too slow, too confined, to out there - and yet, it's far higher quality than a "straight to TV" film as well. Based on a 2017 Czech novel of the same name, Spaceman follows a private cosmonaut Jakub (played, surprisingly, by Adam Sandler) as he drifts through space to collect samples from a bizarre celestial body hanging out in space.

In his travels, he meets an alien spider-octopus hybrid thing he eventually calls Janus (voiced by Paul Deno), who has a peculiar interest in learning about humanity. Yeah, it's a weird movie, and so high concept that it could've one come from a novel.

I really liked Adam Sandler in this; it's always a treat when he plays it straight and this isn't the sort of film I'd thought he'd star in for Netflix. Paul Dano is maximum Paul Dano and does a good job with this admittedly weird role. I genuinely felt that him and Sandler had good chemistry and I felt for the character. I can't say the same about Carey Mulligan's Lenka, who felt quite one note and annoying by the end of it. Even Kunal Nayyar of Big Bang Theory fame is solid here.

The film's editing and cinematography are also top notch; professional and more than competent than I'd initially expect. Janus in particular looks really good.

Unfortunately, where the film falls a bit flat for me is the plot. I haven't read the original novel, but I can't help but feel a lot was left on the cutting room floor here. Despite the wholly British-American cast, this is a very Czech story, and themes surrounding post-Communist guilt and the country's difficult political history are touched upon, but barely explored. A little too much focus was placed on the frankly annoying relationship between Jakub and Lenka.

I'm sorry, but while I get the core idea of the film, I find it somewhat questionable. Sure, an astronaut being sent into space from time to time might be difficult for a stable relationship. But that would be the case with *any* couple; is the film trying to tell us we shouldn't make sacrifices for scientific discovery or personal achievement? Lenka should be a more supportive wife; there's nothing particular special she does to maintain her relationship with Jakub.

And to abandon a man FLOATING IN SPACE while he's almost done a year long post because, essentially, he isn't paying enough attention to her and expect us to sympathize is laughable. Mulligan also delivers almost...too British of a performance. (Funny that Adam Sandler can at least pass as a Czech man).

Overall though, this is a solid little film. I think it could've been about more; but as it stands, it's definitely worth a watch.

2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Starship Troopers (1997)

7/10

Like a YA version of a war movie, with 30 year old teenagers

3 March 2024

If I could describe Starship Troopers ina sentence, it'd be this: a movie that has a lot of good stuff, a lot of bad stuff, but its tone and world building ultimately push it into the good category. Paul Verhoeven - one of the 90s most prolific directors - clearly intended this movie to have a campy, tongue-in-cheek tone.

People tell me that Verhoeven was clearly aware that the source material is supposed to be critical of the militaristic, Spartan like civilization that exists in the story. I'm sure he was, but he doesn't really convey that here. The film instead has an almost 1950s sci fi movie flair, with then patriotism intact (except not for the United States, but a "world civilization" where everyone speaks English and sounds American, especially Buenos Aires). I'm fine with that; I think on that level, the film is a fine, schlocky B movie.

But if we're going to pretend this film really wants to explore militarism, war, the toll it takes on society...it just doesn't. I'm sorry.

Most of this film is strictly interpersonal drama or individual motivations; a lot of it is clunky and melodramatic. Almost comically so at times; I'm sorry, I just didn't care about the love triangle between Rico, Carmen, and the other girl. At times, the tone is almost like a teen drama, and it's unintentionally hilarious.

However, when the movie gets to the human-bug conflict, it's pretty great. Verhoeven's films are known for their iconic gore, and this one does not disappoint. The battle scenes have some unbelievably dumb tactics notwithstanding; they definitely bugged me. But, they're fun overall. Verhoeven decides to make the humans lose or barely escape every encounter, which really elevates the threat of the Arachnids. Who, by the way, look awesome, event with the late 90s CGI.

While it's probably a smidge too long, unbelievably cheesy at times, and could've spent a bit more time on the interesting themes the book explores, this is a lot of fun. It's a great movie to watch with people, and a blast when it gets going.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Madame Web (2024)

1/10

Unlike Morbius, this movie is so bad it's fun to watch. A hilarious failure.

28 February 2024

I cannot believe how bad this movie is. Madame Web might be the most incompetently made major "blockbuster" studio film released in this decade so far. It's an honest-to-God so bad it's good movie in the making that I'm ecstatic exists, because it's so funny and totally worth seeing in theatres if cringe humour is your thing. I'm serious.

There is not a single element from this film that's done right. Madame Web, for those who don't know, is an ally of Spider-man who can see into the future and therefore, helps him with crime fighting. She's supposed to be a mutant, so the bizarre origin story as presented in this movie isn't even comic accurate. How she gets her powers and where they come from is barely explained, yet factors heavily into the story as a whole.

Really, a lot in this movie is just NEVER explained. It's almost as if they made a film hoping for a sequel, but also not wanting a sequel? Because on and behind the screen, it's apparent no one REALLY cared about this movie. Every single performance is absolutely terrible. Dakota Johnson and Sydney Sweeney might as well have read these lines on the toilet and had a robot version of them on screen. The villain, played by Tahir Rahim, is...legitmately Tommy Wiseau levels of bad here.

Not only does he have no screen presence and not only is his motivation absolutely hilarious (he essentially wants to kill three random women he sees in a reccuring vision, and never stops and thinks...could my actions be leading to this outcome?). But his dialog all sounds ADR and the accent he puts on is a mishmash of every "foreign" accent you've ever heard, and he's as wooden as a tree.

The film is also really poorly shot and edited even worse. It's not just that it looks flat and boring, but it's actively confusing what's going on in many of the action and "premonition" scenes (often over done with effects to hide that) and what certain shots and edits are attempting to convey to the audience. Basic film making techniques are fudged here.

There are so many little things in this movie, from the costumes to the casting to the sound design/engineering/mixing to the script, that just feel OFF. The dialog is atrocious for most it, often petering out with no point to it (the final line of the movie had my brother and I laughing uncontrollably because of how meaningless it was). The movie sounds terrible, with the music often too low but random sound effects too high. The three girls we follow are supposed to be teenagers, but look closer to Dakota Johnson's age, and even the clothes they wear feel oddly inappropriate.

I haven't even really gotten to the plot, which is essentially the Terminator except worse in every regard. There are probably a bunch of plot holes and contrivances I haven't even thought of yet. The plot actually feels like a fever dream and written by kids. I'm not exaggerating.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. If you love cringe inducing bad movies that inadvertently teach you about what makes good films good, look no further. This really represents the bottom of the barrel for superhero films this decade. Incredible.

4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Killer (2023)

6/10

A mostly fine assassin Flick With WAY too much product placement

28 February 2024

David Fincher is one of the most technically proficient directors in the game today, and even if The Killer isn't his best work, it is nice to look at, expertly edited, and sounds great. There are some really great moments in this movie, especially a fight towards the end that ranks as probably the best in years. This fight alone would be worth watching, even if the movie it's a part of is quite lacking.

The Killer is based on a comic book and for another thing I liked about it, the film reflects that in subtle (and not-so-subtle) ways. The aformentioned fight, Tilda Swinton's character, the narration (which, can get somewhat grating at times)...this film feels quite different Fincher's other movies.

Unfortunately, it's also amongst his worst. When you really boil this film down, its a pretty standard assassin revenge flick where the hero is a bit more self aware about his sociopathy. It works on that level for a bit, but gets quite tired and outside of that, really offers nothing of interest. It's a fairly conventional action movie that's a bit darkly humorous at times.

Fassbender gives his most middle of the road performance in a while. Perfectly serviceable, and nothing more. I think I would've preferred the movie have him speak to the camera and cut down on the narration, as it constantly took me out of the movie and naturally, as the plot develops, we get less of it.

Another thing I have to mention about this film, and it's weird to even say this, is the INCESSANT product placement. My God. You can't go a few scenes without an appearance from a car brand, a random company like Starbucks, McDonalds, or Amazon (the latter being EASILY the most obnoxious) or even dialog mentioning a company. Netflix isn't a Disney or Universal, I get it. But shoving ads down our throats in movies where they just don't fit will never give them the legitimacy they crave.

Overall, the Killer is fine. It's not the worst movie ever, yet, for David Fincher, it sticks out as one of his most paint-by-numbers films yet.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Jurassic Park (1993)

10/10

Quite Possibly The Best Film Ever Made.

26 February 2024

Sometimes, you just need to revisit a classic. 30 years ago, a film was released that would give birth to not just a franchise, but a reinvigorated craze for dinosaurs for an entire generation of kids (especially boys), several theme parks, unparalleled leaps in film technology...that film is Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park.

To say this is a perfect film almost goes without saying at this point. It is perfect; okay, not LITERALLY, to the extent that any human made creation can't really just literally flawless. I still can't get over the shot where Arnold's (Samuel L. Jackson) arm falls on Ellie (Laura Dern) near the end. Where did it come from? Why did it fall? Who knows. But little nit picky moments like this are really the only things I can think of.

What sets this film apart from other big monster movies is that it's actually ABOUT something. It's about the human desire to control nature and play God and the rapacious and uncaring nature of capitalism; the externalities of our decision making that we never account for. Yet, it's also about family and personal growth; rewatching it, I'm struck by how truly incredible an arc Dr. Alan Grant (immortalized by Sam Neil) has. He goes from a guy perfectly content with his fossils and a "will they, won't they" relationship with Ellie to a person who seems ready for fatherhood and responsibility.

Then there's the tension that only a master filmmaker like Steven Spielberg and the incredible team he works with could get right. The initial T-Rex scene and the velociraptor finale are burned indelibly in my and I'm pretty sure everyone's mind. They are iconic scenes, honestly, some of the best set pieces EVER put to film. But even the quieter moments, the scene with the brontosauruses, the initial reveal of the dinosaurs, the interactions between Ian (Jeff Goldbum - amazing, as always), John Hammon (Richard Attenborough), Ellie and Alan...

And don't even get me started on the visual effects. Yes, there are some rare moments where you can see the early 90s CG. But they're so few and far between; the near perfect marriage between practical and computer effects is something I'm sure VFX artists to this day study intently.

A 10/10 isn't really enough for Jurassic Park. It's a bona fide classic, an achievement in film making you don't get very often and something that can never truly be replicated again. If aliens were to visit us and says, "show us your best stories and if we like them, we'll spare humanity," I'd send them a copy of Jurassic Park. That's how incredible this movie is.

3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Asteroid City (2023)

8/10

Gorgeous Americana; A Warm, Quirky Wes Anderson Romp.

20 February 2024

Wes Anderson is a polarizing, but ultimately valuable film maker who hits far more than he misses. To be honest though, I have worried that his unique style would eventually become very tiresome; something I have to admit I felt with his last film, the French Dispatch. I only write this to note that while I genuinely like and respect Anderson, I'm not a fanboy who eats up everything he makes.

So when I say Asteroid City is a great movie, I mean it. This thing is as Wes Andersony as it gets. Quirky, bizarre, many single shot frames, massive cast of characters, odd dialog...you know what I mean. However, unlike some of his films, which can come off as almost clinical in the way they present a story, Asteroid City feels...comparatively heartfelt. This movie made me feel warm and fuzzy in a way that I was surprised by.

First off, in a year of visually stunning films, Asteroid City really stands out as having some of the best set design of 2023 (right up there with Poor Things and Barbie). The titular American desert town feels quirky, yet comforting. A place ripped out of time yet timeless in its appeal. It's hard not to watch this movie in awe of how beautiful it is, with every frame looking like a gorgeous painting. It's one of those movies whose world I really didn't want to leave; I watched right until the black screen of the credits. The music and visuals are just top notch here.

The cast of characters who populate it are weird, but warm and still human. Every is at the top of their game here. I have to shout out Jason Schwartzmann, who delivers probably his best performance in years. Bryan Cranston plays a very interesting and admittedly, limited character, but he's so pitch perfect at it, it's not not to admire him. It seems like everyone got the memo and there are just great performances throughout this thing, from big stars to minor side characters. They really do a great job at making Asteroid City feel like a real place.

To be clear, Asteroid City has a very strange and often, confusing structure. The movie we're watching is presented to us as a (very high budget) stage play and some of the characters play dual roles. I think works for the most part; we get some truly excellent moments in the "real world" and it's shot in gorgeous black and white. Was it entirely necessary to tell the story this way? No. Do I feel the film could've been a bit more conventional? Sure. I think when this film is at its weakest, it's when the film cuts to these scenes, but they're still quite good.

In terms of what it's *about*, I really didn't get the confusion. Fundamentally, Asteroid City takes a desolate, cold, and for lack of a better term, alien setting and humanizes it. Fundamentally, it's about human connection and its power to help us; in the uncertainty of the universe, what we know is that we need other people. And in these turbulent, strange times, that message is more important than ever.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

ryanpersaud-59415

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed