Change Your Image
dmbelafan
Reviews
Strange World (2022)
Why was this made?
It's been a few days since I took the kids to see this, and I can barely remember anything about the movie. The visuals were pretty good, and there were some unique visual design elements throughout, but the design of the main characters was lacking compared to minor side characters, and the pink-pudding texture grew stale quickly.
The plot was non-existent. Is it a family reunion story? A redemption story? A save the world story? A coming of age story? The characters' motivations change from moment moment and scene to scene - whatever is convenient for the writers in the moment.
The big twist was apparent from a mile away, and lacked internal consistency.
This movie didn't do anything new, just a new jumble of old ideas. At least the popcorn was tasty.
Foundation (2021)
Style without substance
A number of reviewers have expressed disdain for the show's lack of respect for Asimov's source material. I am here to confirm that, as someone who has read none of the books, it stands as equally atrocious.
Several of the show's premises could make for compelling storytelling. The genetic dynasty and its inner turmoil, the philosophical questioning of its morality and the nature of the soul, the importance of the foundation in the face of certain societal collapse...a skilled writer could coax a narrative in dozens of interesting directions. Instead, the plot is quickly reduced to pew pew lasers and "chosen one" characters who can do whatever they need to, whenever they need to, "just because".
The show's visuals are generally outstanding, with only minor stumbles from time to time. From the opening title sequence to set dressing, they clearly drew inspiration from the likes of "The Expanse" and 2021's "Dune". But the lack of world building and any sense of grounding mean that all the pretty pictures and impressive scale carry no weight.
I watched this with a fellow Sci-Fi buff, and within two episodes most of our time was spent laughing at plot holes, obvious contradictions in the story, and comically overacted or poorly delivered lines.
On that note: Lee Pace is excellent, particularly in the relatively strong episode 8 "The Missing Piece". Jared Harris delivers well despite the weak material, and Lou Llobell gives a consistent (if one-note) performance as Gaal. Brothers Dawn and Dusk are competent supporting characters.
On the other hand, most other roles are simply poorly acted. Salvor Hardin lacks development and motivation, her love interest is simply irrelevant, and the Huntress is one of the most unwatchable, uninspired, immature villains I've ever seen on screen.
Don't waste your time on this drivel. Watch (or re-watch) The Expanse, or join me in reading the original source material. Only a few standout actors and the visual artists involved in this show save it from the minimum one-star rating.
Midsommar (2019)
Not for fans of 'The Nun'
There's not's much to say for people who are giving this 1-star ratings, other than there's no accounting for taste. If you prefer horror that spoon-feeds you an abundance of the unnatural and grotesque, then you'll be better served by other films.
Midsommar is a powerhouse of unsettling storytelling. In a genre that relies on pitch black rooms and camera angles that obscure the jump scare coming around the corner, it instead thrusts the entire movie into bright sunlight. It doesn't need an unending stream of unexpected scares, because seeing them coming from a mile away actually works *better* and forces the viewer to sit helpless as they know (at least part of) what's coming. In a movie so intentionally contradictory, the moments lacking ambiguity feel obviously deceitful and put us on edge for the fate of the characters.
As others have mentioned, the cinematography is outstanding. Dialogue feels very grounded, and the performances of the leads, especially Florence Pugh, are excellent. In addition, MY GOD the soundtrack - The Haxan Cloak (Bobby Krlic) deserves all the praise for his mix of atmospheric pieces mixed with bright, cheerful pieces when appropriate.
This is not an obvious film. It treats its audience with respect and puts things in plain view while hiding its lies in plain sight. I would not go into this if you are in the mood for traditional horror - but I would gladly recommend it to any movie lover who simply wants to see a well-made film.
The Witcher: The End's Beginning (2019)
Substance without context
I've not read the books or played the games, which I would think is true for a fair bit of the audience. That's my frame of reference.
They clearly have their sights set high with this pilot. But you can't rush through a narrative and have your story carry any weight. The early battle scene, while reasonably well framed, feels hollow as the viewer has no attachment to any characters. I know that I'm supposed to care about several of the characters who are killed, but I have no idea if they're worthy of pity.
Cavill was quite good, although his dialogue (like much of the rest) reaches high but again lacks the context to feel impactful. His fight choreography was very well done. It felt experienced and grounded, not superhuman.
I'm excited to see where this show goes, and suspect that a rewatch once I know the characters will feel more meaningful.
El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019)
A film for BB fans
Let's be honest. If you are a fan of BB, you're going to watch El Camino. No review I write should change that. Go ahead and watch it, smile at the cameos, feel the excitement at the unexpected W+J scene, fall in love with the loyalty shown by Skinny Pete and Badger. I felt all of those things, but not much more. The performances were outstanding - particularly Aaron Paul, Charles Baker, and Robert Forster. But the newly introduced characters carried no emotional weight. I guess it all went to Todd's cheeks.
The Lion King (2019)
Waste of time, money grab
TLK is one of my favorite Disney classics, so while I didn't understand the need for a remake, I did look forward to seeing it with the full theatrical experience again. Boy was I wrong.
The core failure of the movie is the inexplicable choice to go fully photo-realistic with the animation. There is zero, and I can't stress this enough, ZERO expression or emotion in the characters' faces. Sure, it's zoologically accurate, but why does that matter when your plot is a conniving lion plotting a political coup with another species?
The voice acting was.....barely passable. Nothing remarkable, especially given the A-list names on the cast. Timon and Pumba were the high flyers here, and even they were a pale shade of the excellent originals. Classic musical numbers were either underwhelming or over-performed (looking at you, Beyoncé).
All of this is made even more obvious by the fact that the movie is nearly a shot-for-shot, line-for-line copy of the original. Timon and Pumba had some clever self-aware lines that poked fun at that fact, but given how closely they mimicked the original, it's remarkable that the final product managed to come out so flat in comparison.
I don't know what this means for Disney's other forthcoming live action re-releases. Aladdin wasn't up to snuff either, but had the energy and character to make up some lost ground. I've not yet seen the Dumbo remake, and want to look forward to Mulan, but if this is where they're setting the bar, I'll wait until they come to Netflix.
Game of Thrones: The Iron Throne (2019)
A case study in ruining a masterpiece
This may be the first TV show to subject its fans to the same fate as the poor souls who pre-order video games before release, without knowing the quality.
GoT spent 7 seasons methodically telling a generally expertly crafted story. Pacing was dictated by what was most appropriate for the plot - and the plot was dictated by characters who acted in line with established values, motivations, and desires. Viewers experienced loss, grief, triumph, despair, and elation in heaping measures. The show was beholden to no one, acted of its own accord, and not once did I consider that outside influences were affecting its narrative.
Season 8 has been little more than a string of nonsensical events tied together by the common thread that the writers want to do something else and are simply *choosing* to end the show on a pre-determined schedule. If things seem out of place, it's because the characters no longer act in accordance with their values and motivations. They act in whatever way pushes the plot towards its conclusion the fastest. For the first time, the quality of the show is being determined by external influences - that the head writers are moving to work on the Star Wars franchise, and can't shut the door behind themselves quickly enough.
This episode was acted and produced far above a 1/10, but there is simply no excuse for the writing here. They set a masterful precedent in showing what could be done in telling a story, and all credit goes to GRRM on that front. It's just a shame he couldn't bring them a finished product to translate to the screen. I'd been considering keeping my HBO subscription to check out their other content, but I simply refuse to give them another dime of my money. 90 minutes and all I feel is empty.
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Near perfect
This isn't a perfect movie, but it's closer to a 10 than a 9 for me, hence the rating. Also, I feel the need to offset reviews that are low for no reason other than the writer's lack of understanding of the Marvel universe.
There's little worth saying to convince anyone to go see this movie - you can nitpick all you want, but you are guaranteed to be entertained. If you're remotely committed to the MCU, you simply can't miss out on its conclusion, which I found truly stellar. There's enough to love that everyone will have their own favorite 10-20 moments.
I'm seeing a lot of hate surrounding three major plot elements: Captain Hammer, Chunky Thor, and Professor Hulk.
Captain America wielding Mjolnir is well-established in Marvel comics, and was teased in Age of Ultron. They've been setting it up for years, and to be honest, seeing it in action has been one of my greatest wishlist items in the MCU. The hammer's inscription reads, "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor." That's why Cap is suddenly imbued with the powers of the god of thunder. Surprised to see so many "long-time fans" in the reviews section here who felt this came out of left field.
This version of Thor was a surprise, to be sure. After establishing his character as one who can suffer loss after loss (parents, love, home, brother) and still keep up the fight, seeing him go full Lebowski was a bit of a shocker. However, I don't feel it's unforgivable or unexplainable. He takes personal ownership for the loss to Thanos more heavily than any other Avenger, and it's quite an assertion to say that bearing the weight of the deaths of half the universe wouldn't break him. At worst, this was an unpopular character development choice. At best, it's an exploration of how an Asgardian's best can fall prey to the weakness of the humanness he's come to surround himself with.
Professor Hulk...was probably my only gripe with the film. I've been itching to see Hulk at his fullest strength, and boy did that fall flat here. I was extremely happy to see Banner back in the green, but I've not personally read any of the comics where Banner and Hulk co-exist in this way, assuming such comics exist. Also - at no point in the movie did it seem like there was an advantage to this arrangement - they either needed Banner, or they needed Hulk - never did they need "both". Side note - I wanted desperately for uncontrolled, savage hulk to be unleashed when The Ancient One ejected Banner's astral form.
Aquaman (2018)
Empty eye candy
First things first - this movie is gorgeous. Aside from a few fleeting (and forgivable) moments, the visuals in this movie are lovely. Objects feel like they have the scale and "weight" that they should, which can be difficult to get right from a CGI perspective. I found the movie's humor hit-or-miss, but mostly enjoyable. Some lines felt forced, but Mera's first ventures onto land included numerous clever moments.
Dialogue was sadly predictable, but generally delivered well. Amber Heard's performance was at times engaging, and at times distracting. She didn't seem particularly well suited for moments of powerful monologue.
As other reviewers have noted, character development was rushed, but they certainly made an effort to add a bit of depth to at least a couple characters. I wanted to like Black Manta, but came out disappointed. Maybe they'll do something more clever with him in the future.
Numerous plot elements just sort of happened for no real reason, other than to tie up the loose end of a joke left hanging from a setup ten minutes prior (Pinocchio, for example). The "National Treasure" sequence on the quest for Atlan's trident seemed out of place within the scope of the rest of the movie.
Overall, this is a great popcorn movie. It'll end up in my collection, no doubt, but likely won't merit another viewing until its sequel is released.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)
A fun ride, lacking direction
I'm a huge HP fan. Own every book, movie, tons of merch, re-watch and re-read regularly. I thoroughly enjoyed the first installment of Fantastic Beasts. I can only partially put my finger on why, but the second didn't do much for me.
Don't misunderstand - the performances were fabulous. Redmayne continues to polish his already masterful portrayal of Newt, and Jude Law delivers what I felt a very true, nuanced performance as Albus Dumbledore that wonderfully captures his charm and empathy. The primary supporting cast (those who returned from the first film) are played well, and some are given a bit of room for development.
The film stumbles in its excessive use of monologues and flashbacks as exposition, rather than letting more natural dialogue and events tell the story. It spoon-feeds the audience heaping portions of backstory, often without much actual plot value (more on that later). I'm all for world-building, but here it feels lazy and heavy-handed. While on the topic of writing, the actions of several characters in the second and third acts simply don't make sense, given their personalities as established by this film and its predecessor. Sure, they make for dramatic moments and add some twists and turns, but they're so out of left field that they really shatter suspension of disbelief.
This installment also fails to have a real sense of where it's going, where the first succeeded. There are simply too many plates to keep spinning, and the writing was not up to the task. Several side characters had little reason to exist within the scope of this film. I'm sure they'll be relevant later on, but better writing would have given them purpose immediately. The final confrontation, while visually stunning, felt unimaginative and repetitive - those who fell merited little emotional response, given their characters' trivial importance to the story.
There is still much to love in this film! Creature design continues to be brilliant, truly living up to the film's name. Dan Fogler continues to bring the laughs as the oft-cartoonish Kowalski. Long-time fans are sure to be thrilled with the return to the Hogwarts school grounds, and enjoy meeting characters from the books previously not seen on the big screen (or the younger versions of beloved characters). Magic abounds, from the sinister to the silly.
I think it's safe to say that every HP fan will be adding this to their collection - but I can't say it stands on its own. I hope newly introduced characters are allowed room to grow in the next installment, and perhaps all these loose ends will find a satisfying conclusion. In the meantime, there's not much reason to re-watch this one, at least until the next one is released. A fun ride, but felt like a place holder.
The Greatest Showman (2017)
Pleasant but forgettable
It seems every reviewer on this site is up in arms against a swarm of film critics who reviewed this film negatively. I abstained from any reviews or ratings before viewing, but frankly the film was only above average, no more.
Choreography was quite good, and certainly captured the energy demanded by the film's subject matter. The accompanying cinematography was well executed, as should be expected from a director whose background is in commercial advertising. But for a film that relies on its score and spectacle, almost every song was immediately forgettable.
Watch Moulin Rouge and plan to walk out with "Come What May" and "Your Song" stuck in your head. See Hamilton, and you'll be unwrapping dozens of cleverly hidden double-entendres for days. The songs from "The Greatest Showman" simply pale in comparison to those from any noteworthy musical. The lyrics are shallow, relying on tired turns of phrase and unoriginal analogies. The melodies border on pedestrian, and often provide little more than a framework to support the vocal riffs of the (admittedly excellent) performers.
Hugh Jackman is clearly in his element here, and makes the most of every moment on screen. The same can be said for the majority of the cast, but sadly their greatest moments are limited by the failure of originality from the writing/composing team.
This film is absolutely worth seeing, particularly for fans of theater and musicals. Just don't expect it to stand up to the expectations that have been set by the great musicals of our time.
The Star (2017)
Christian moviegoers should expect more
Religious movies can be outstanding. Children's movies can be outstanding. The combination may be tricky, but is certainly manageable (see "The Prince of Egypt" for reference). Sadly, "The Star" fails in both regards. There were redeeming elements, but the film as a whole lacked direction and polish.
In an audience half comprised of children, laughs were sparse, and hinged almost entirely on butt jokes. To be fair, there were some clever jokes that depended on the viewer's familiarity with scripture, but they were few and far between. It didn't help that the movie couldn't decide if it wanted to be funny, sacrosanct, suspenseful, or none of the above.
The major liberties taken with the story were for the sake of giving the movie an element of fear and suspense, and added little to the movie's message. Critical plot-altering moments came regularly out of left field with a single line of explanatory dialogue and no narrative support. With some focus, surely the writers could have done better, but their performance here is reflective of Sony Pictures Animation's trend of rushing out unfinished products.
The soundtrack was quite good in general and is probably worth owning by itself. Aside from an uninspired performance of "His Eye is on the Sparrow" by Casting Crowns, the other renditions of classics were beautiful and fitting.
I'd hoped for more from what could have been an interesting angle on the Christmas story, but I doubt it will be added to our collection. While not unpleasant, it left much to be desired.
Cars 3 (2017)
Painfully unoriginal
Took the kids to see this early after release, figuring I'd enjoy myself as well since the original was pretty well done. Sadly, I was mistaken.
The premise of technology evolving makes sense as a core story element and had potential to be interesting, but was used for nothing beyond playing into the franchise's nostalgia for the good ol' days of racing, on which the first Cars movie hung its hat.
Lightning's various training methods were all obvious setups for a montage of critical moments in the big race, and for a movie which often embraces reality regarding what real cars can *actually* do, Cruz Ramirez' big finish with a literal 360 flip seemed forced and unoriginal (didn't Lightning do one in the first movie?)
Speaking of Cruz, her switch into the race came completely out of left field, and seemed like another brutally forced story element. Imho, it would have been better to end the movie with "Well, Lightning lost but hey kids, here's why it's going to be OK" rather than "Look how these guys can exploit a loophole in the rules! Yay, winning is all that matters!"
At least the kids enjoyed their popcorn.
Now You See Me 2 (2016)
Demands too much of the viewer while offering little in return
I watched the first installment of Now You See Me expecting it to be fun and clever, which it was. A fast-paced romp, it touched on classic themes of both heist movies and magic movies, while remaining original in its twists and turns.
Now You See Me 2 borrows from similar themes, but demands an impossible level of suspension of disbelief from the viewer. I'm not usually one for eye-rolling, but I found plenty of opportunities in these two hours.
As in the first installment, we are again asked to believe in a theatrical take on hypnosis that is unironically comical in its brevity and delivery. We are further expected to believe that there are numerous masters of this art, all of whom can be instantly captivated by one another on a whim. While I cracked a smile the first time, it's clearly nothing more than a convenient way for the writers to fill obvious plot holes.
Laws of physics do not exist in this film, beginning with the horsemen's impossible card- bouncing shenanigans. Later, in a more glaringly obvious gaffe, one questions the water- drop strobe effect that a filmmaker apparently saw in their high school physics class without listening to the teacher's explanation. While enough strobes would indeed have appeared to "freeze" the raindrops, they would have continued to drench both performer and onlooker relentlessly.
Then there are the moments left unexplained, from the belt taken without a master thief noticing, to the ludicrous moment of Jesse Isenberg dissolved into a puddle (good lord that somehow seems even more ridiculous as I type it), to just how exactly none of the numerous security guards noticed a damn playing card being thrown around a clean room. And when in the world did they find the time to set up all the gear for their final acts?
While the film had some bright spots (Ruffalo's fight/escape scene comes to mind), not even the performances of good actors could save this movie from the impossible tasks the writers asked of them. I really wanted to like this...it just wasn't in the cards.
Arrival (2016)
Borrows themes, but stands on its own in the end.
Arrival shares a lot of themes with Contact, one of my favorite films in its genre. I spent much of the film waiting for it to find a way to set itself apart, and boy did it ever. The pacing is intentionally slow, which I believe serves to put the viewer in the same anxious state the characters are living in.
The process of decryption and communication is handled believably - it seems a number of 1-star reviewers don't understand basic tenets of linguistics (not that I can blame them). Using building blocks to establish understanding is crucial, and takes time - time that the viewer feels in a very real way.
The film's conclusion is poignant, satisfying, and well set up without being obvious. I feel sorry for those reviewers who said they left early - they missed a stunning conclusion to a wonderfully told story. I might suggest that they grab a copy of Battle: Los Angeles from their local thrift shop (or garbage dump)...it's probably more their speed.
Stardust (2007)
About as much flavor as water.
I checked this out on the recommendation of several online communities, and frankly I don't see what all the fuss is about. Don't get me wrong, Stardust has its fair share of interesting plot devices, and the performances by the cast are generally well done. A number of reviewers have likened it to The Princess Bride, which actually possessed a sense of self-awareness and wit, both of which seem generally lacking here.
This film survives by grasping at the low-hanging fruit provided by the fairy-tale and fantasy genres, meaning that anyone who's seen a handful of them knows where this story is headed at all times. There is a general lack of direction and substance, just a large assortment of run-of-the-mill fantasy elements.
There are a number of distracting editing gaffes, most notably the scene around an hour in where the dagger against a man's neck changes position back and forth a total of ten times between shots.
If films were rated on the number of deus ex machina moments they provide, Stardust would receive top marks. But they're not - and there is much left to be desired here.