Change Your Image
boss-981-447297
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Kimi no na wa. (2016)
One of the best anime movies. If you can only pick one, pick this.
Good anime always brings me back that nostalgic feeling of one life I never actually lived.
Western movies have one constant theme: urgency, the utter need to stop everything to accomplish something right now. It's rare to see mainstream stories that show growth over long periods.
Now I know why this particular movie caught the attention of the critics. It's a perfect blend of 2 simple people, tied together by Armageddon levels of urgency over 3 years and 8 years. It's something complicated to explain to a Western audience.
It revolves around a splitting rogue comet destroying half of a small town. And yet, we have the character development of 2 teenagers living an everyday life and getting randomly intertwined in a mystery fantasy plot. If you start watching without reading anything, you won't know where it is going.
It's a poignant story with a compelling narrative, the expected top-notch quality of movie-level anime, and proper editing that mixes watchmaker precision and paced character development with the comet arc urgency. An unusual romance that highlights, at its core, the idea of growth. And seeking that special something while still moving your ordinary life forward. It isn't easy to put in words if you didn't grow up in a culture of duty.
It makes sense to me after I have been chasing that special something for decades. And it may make sense to youngsters still starting the chase. The important part of the movie is not the romance, the intriguing plot, or the suspense. It's the mix of different feelings it evokes.
This is relatively unheard of. Imagine Christopher Nolan-style editing like in Memento or Inception, together with Rolland Emmerich-like destruction. Mixing an old-school country-side feeling of Spielberg or Zemeckis with the art quality of Studio Ghibli.
If you can stay open-minded, you may be surprised.
It's a close 9 out of 10.
Groundhog Day (1993)
A true classic. Still great to see.
I've been wanting to revisit this old classic. Finally did. And it did not disappoint.
Actually, I can only now fully appreciate what it actually means.
Everybody has Groundhog Day. Everybody will eventually hit a point in life of standing still. Feeling like you're living the same day, over and over. Unfortunately, some people will live in that same blizzard on Feb 2, and it will feel like you're just stuck.
Even if you're now a young, fledgling, young person. Full of energy and passion. Especially if you're full of love. You will run out of steam. And you will question yourself, "What now".
Groundhog Day is about that painful process. At first, you wake up confused, with the realization that you're stuck-Deja Vu. You wake up to the same day you just thought you left behind yesterday-going nowhere.
Then comes the F* bomb attitude. Just screw it. "I'll live in the present." No compromises. No commitment. The naive and inconsequential "Just do it" attitude.
Then comes the second painful realization. Please do whatever you want whenever you want, it is boring. Painfully boring. Even if you can "just do it," it's as dull as hell.
Then comes desperation. You will want to kill yourself in so many different ways. Most people never come back from that. Most keep restating at the same 6am on Feb 2.
Finally comes the last realization. The next level requires purpose and really wanting to be better. It's cliche, and everybody thinks they're already doing that. But they are not. There's a vast difference between doing things with effort and achieving things effortlessly.
Effortlessly means taking one step at a time, slowly but surely heading forward, moving forward. This is even more painful than the previous desperation. It's realizing your own limitations and playing with them.
Only then will you find purpose, will, and Target your actions purposefully when you wake up tomorrow, Feb 3. And you will leave Groundhog Day behind.
It's a lovely movie-Bill Murray at one of his best. It's a psychological analysis dressed like a light romance, but the romance is just a distraction, and it doesn't matter.
Interesting how Bill Murray makes interesting psychological movies. I recommend Lost in Translation, for example.
25 years later, it still holds up today. I highly recommend you find the remastered version. It's a solid 9/10 for me.
A Star Is Born (2018)
The song is catchy an great. The movie, not so much.
I had very high hopes, as I really like Bradley Cooper and am also a fan of Lady Gaga.
There is nothing wrong with the production. It's top notch. Photography is great. The direction is incredible. The composition, framing, and pace are all great. And, of course, the sound design and Soundtrack are fantastic. Bradley Cooper himself is a half-badgood singer.
My biggest problem is the screenplay. I have never seen the other old versions, so I wonder if the real problem relies on the original story.
The story lacks emotional hooks. It fails to engage me. The biggest problem is that you isolate the main characters. Get a snapshot from the beginning and from the end. They are precisely the same. They don't change. There is no growth.
The Ally character is excellent, and I love her. But she is ready from the get-go. She is a fortress. Her path is super straightforward. She does the intelligent thing, preserves herself, and is never shown to be deeply engaged.
The Jack character is broken from the get-go and remains broken. Again, the same.
So, the story revolves around time passing around static characters. Yes, it was an exciting ride, but a straightforward one at that.
The first act is perfect, actually. We all have a blast when it comes together in the first duet. It's the best part of the movie by far.
Then there is the buildup, the necessary conflict that never actually occurs. As I said, Ally is already a strong person; we feel her more like a mother figure than a divided lover. And Jack feels too much like a teenager to really care.
The third act is disillusionment.
So, when the ending happens, it feels empty.
You might argue that it's just me being cold. In the past couple of weeks, I've been watching plenty of emotional shows that have dehydrated me, so it's not a lack of tears.
It had everything to be a great musical drama. Ended up just with the musical. Pity.
Midnight in Paris (2011)
Carpe Diem in Paris
When I was recommended to watch this Woody Allen gem, I was immediately drawn in by the star-studded cast. How could I have missed a movie that features the likes of Kathy Bates (as the wise Gertrude Stein), Michael Sheen (as the hateful Paul), Tom Hiddleston (as Scott Fitzgerald), Corey Still (as the passionate Hemingway), Marion Cottilard (as the beautiful, mysterious but ultimately tragic Adriana), Adrien Brody (as literally surreal Salvador Dali), Lea Sydoux (as the hopeful Gabrielle), and many more? The movie is led by the journey of Owen Wilson's writer character, Gil.
In terms of production value, this movie is gorgeous and meticulously filmed. It's definitely Woody Allen's love letter to Paris and what it represents.
The movie feels structured like a theater play. At first, I thought it would become a drama, even a tragedy. But it ended up being an uplifting story-even poetic.
It's a lovely movie. I truly loved it because it feels what I feel. It's a simple but honest critique-an allegory and a twist on Plato's allegory of the cave.
It's a clash of three eras: the present, the past, and the future. You shouldn't conform to a safe, easy, but ultimately unfulfilling future. But you shouldn't also dream of the romantic past and live there. You can choose the right now and shape it yourself without denying the past and without sacrificing the future.
Basically, Carpe Diem over the lovely rainy Parisian background.
Café Society (2016)
Exploring a bit of Socrates. Shallow, of course, but entertaining.
I was recommended another Woody Allen movie to see, and it's interesting. I actually like Woody Allen's style. It's colorful, flashy, and gloomy at the same time.
Woody had very interesting taste in casting. Even with the shortcomings, I enjoyed Jesse Eisenhower, Kristen Stewart, and even Steve Carell. Corey Stoll was again one of the standouts, even though he was a supporting cast member.
Again, the photography is superb. It adds this super-saturated Technicolor quality, which is obviously on purpose because of the 1930s LA and NYC scenery.
In terms of story, it's super simple and in a good way, I think. Maybe he shouldn't have spelled it out in the ending, using the famous Socrates quote, "The unexamined life is not worth living," and adding, "but the examined life is no bargain either."
At first, the film seems to delve into the hypocrisies of everyday life, leading us to seemingly good lives with occasional hiccups and numbing us even to the death of family. It's a journey through life, satisfying yet ultimately unfulfilling, with dreams of what could be but never will. This exploration of life's complexities is both thought-provoking and poignant.
It's sad and poignant, I like the concept.
Candy (2006)
Candy is a Love Story about getting free of Altruistic Love and learning Self-Love.
This movie is super heavy and not for the faint of heart. In many ways, it's heavier than Requiem for a Dream. I think Aronofsky is a superior Director, but Neil Armfield pulled off a more intimate story instead of graphical gore and a criticism of society.
Candy, Requiem for a Dream, and the classic Trainspotting all deal with the ordeals of drug addiction. Requiem and Trainspotting are more on the side of addiction justified by a society that pushed them to become numb and escape reality. I'm afraid I have to disagree. Getting numb is a choice, and you deal with that choice. Pity is not the answer.
Now, I've seen many reviews about Candy that are more focused on the graphical depiction of addiction. But they all fail to see two things: this story has a happy ending (sorta) and is about Love.
This is a movie about two lovers. But there is a catch: They don't value anything; they are empty shells. They grew up justified by society and their families. They enabled this situation by having pity. So now they are unaccomplished adults.
They chose two beautiful actors: Heath Ledger and stunning Abbie Cornish. For at least the movie's first half, you think it's a plain drug addiction story, and you feel sorry for Candy.
But as the 3rd act unfolds, it becomes clear that Candy is a social parasite. And she corrupts everything around her. There is an explanation that I like. Let me quote it:
"The man (in this case, woman) who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality - the man who lives to serve others - is the enslaved. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The conquered enslaved person has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of Love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man, and he degrades the conception of Love. But this is the essence of altruism."
Altruism and selfless Love allow this situation. This is what her father did to Candy, and this is what Dan did to Candy: they had pity.
This is a slavery story. Of course, the roles mix in reality, and both are slaves, but it's not a coincidence that Candy is the movie's title. She is the parasite, and the ending makes that very clear. She will not change. And their so-called Love goes as far as he accepts to remain to be the accomplice. But it's a happy ending because he breaks the bond and sets himself free of her.
Drinking a glass of water symbolizes that. He is not only free of drugs, he is free of her and that abusive relationship.
Now, to understand this layer, one has to understand the meaning of the capital "L" Love IMHO, let me quote my favorite explanation:
"Love is an essential value we obtain from other people. In giving love, we respond to our values realized and made beautiful by another person. In receiving Love, we receive a reward for the virtues, habits, and qualities we have cultivated in our characters.
True love is often said to be "unconditional" or "love is blind." If this were true, falling in Love would be akin to throwing darts, and we would happen upon certain people we loved for no reason. And if Love were unconditional, nothing they ever did, no matter how hurtful or evil, could make us abandon that Love.
Love is our response to those few people we meet toward whom we feel the highest respect, admiration, and attraction. It is not a blank check granted to random passersby but instead the result of our careful examination and approval of another's character. Granting unconditional Love is like appraising a piece of property without examining its size, quality, or location: one is likely to grant unearned Love to the unworthy and withhold Love from those who deserve it most.
Another popular view of love is that it involves self-sacrifice and is a selfless act. After all, only some lovers spend excessive time and money on their relationships? Don't we have to comfort those we love through times of hardship and failure? Real Love involves tremendous personal, selfish gain. We spend our time and money on those we love and support them through tough times because their happiness is so crucial to our own. When we grant Love not as alms for weaknesses and failings but as recognition of the best in others, we become personally interested in their well-being.
The essence of a healthy, loving relationship is trade: one offers it as a recognition of others' characters and receives it as recognition of one's own."
Candy is a Love story about getting free of altruistic Love and starting to learn self-love. One can't love another person without first loving oneself.
Bird Box (2018)
A much inferior A Quiet Place
Oh, Netflix, you're still not up to the task. Unfortunately, this is yet another subpar production.
I was told this is a book adaptation. I need to find out if it's faithful or if the book is any better.
This story's structure, direction, editing, and acting all fail. It's passable at best.
It comes at unfortunate timing. John Krasinski's A Quiet Place is orders of magnitude superior and has a similar story. I can't tell if Krasinski was inspired by the same book, but the premise is basically the same.
It is yet another dystopian future, post-apocalyptic, but instead of not being able to make any sound, here you can't see.
This is yet another variation of the zombie Apocalypse. If you know The Walking Dead, it's the same premise. It's one of our fetishes to see how humans behave outside their environment. That's why we enjoy reality shows. Humans are adaptable, but letting go of routine and the old status quo is always a shock.
Zombie stories are social experiments. It's always fascinating to experiment with people, but as we can't legally do so (as in Zimbardo's Lucifer Effect prison experiments), this is the closest we will get.
Krasinski's direction is way superior. He proved himself a very refined director. Bird Box makes it even more clear how great he was. Because Bird Box is a disaster.
The story is functional. The characters are just common stereotypes. Apart from Sandra Bullock's character, there is zero character development. There's mostly exposition. Initially, the ragtag ensemble has no chemistry, and there is none of the fun and dynamic interactions you see in The Walking Dead.
So, the story drags and makes enough development to go from point A to point B in a very straight line. There are no interesting detours, and no tension builds.
The general photography is bland. Nothing is exciting in the setting, and the camera work is not interesting. It feels like a sitcom setup. It's supposed to be suspense, but there is no proper buildup.
If you want to see the contrast, I recommend you go see A Quiet Place if you haven't yet. You're gonna be blown away.
Sandra Bullock, as usual, didn't sell me the character. There is no charisma in the acting. I can't feel any emotions from her. She's too bland. Now compare her to Emily Blunt in A Quiet Place. One is almost Oscar material, and the other is not.
It seems like the whole purpose of the book was a discussion around suicides, but this adaptation uses the suicide part just as a device. There is no inherent meaning that you can derive from the movie, which ultimately makes this movie a big waste.
It's an unfortunate missed opportunity to portray a similar story differently. It doesn't come close.
It's a 3/10, and that's being super generous.
Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (2018)
Clever idea at the time. I think it was worth it.
I was very pessimistic about this one. The proposal is to be an interactive story. I wouldn't say I like branched stories, even in video games. Nowadays, you have games such as Detroit: Become Human, Beyond Two Souls, and Heavy Rain, all from Quantic Dream. And, of course, the Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, and Batman series from the ill-fated Telltale Games.
I don't like branched stories because, in concept, they dilute the story. A single, cohesive main plot line is essential because, when well executed, it adds layers and layers of nuance and details that are impossible if you allow for many choices.
But Bandersnatch can be summarized in one word: CLEVER.
This one is spot on as an entry in the Black Mirror series. Black Mirror explores some possible branches into a dystopian future, and this episode does the same.
The series is notorious for exaggerating in its discussion of agency. Bandersnatch is perfect as an interactive story because it uses Netflix as a platform and us, the viewers, as plot devices.
If it was a generic interactive story, it wouldn't work so well, but because it uses the gimmick of "choosing" as a central element, it makes a lot of sense.
Without giving up any more spoilers, this is yet another discussion on the themes of free will vs. Determinism vs. Conspiracy. I think the Wisecrack channel would, again, find a way to include Sartre and Camus in this explanation. Depending on how you interpret this, we will have to discuss Existentialism.
This is a much simpler version of "The Matrix." Do we have free will? Are the choices we make our own?
The setting of 1984 makes a lot of sense (there's no internet yet to help out the main characters - the availability of the internet kinda breaks any thriller; we can just Google the answers. In the 80s, we would be stuck).
To top it off, the direction, editing, and production value are generally on par with other Black Mirror episodes. It's edited in a way that it's short, so it motivates you to go back and explore the different branches.
You will realize that the other branches add up to the overall big picture of the discussion, so you will want to watch all the branches.
The philosophical discussion is a bit shallow, in my opinion, and a bit too much "on the nose," but I think it's good enough.
The interactive "pseudo-control" you get is a gimmick, though. It works because it's this kind of story and Black Mirror. I wouldn't do many of those, and this is definitely not "the future of TV shows."
As a discussion over the "agency" theme, I think it's worth your while.
A solid 8/10. Can't wait for the next complete season of Black Mirror.
Alita: Battle Angel (2019)
One of the good anime to live-action adaptations, but not as the hype says..
I was underwhelmed. Don't get me wrong, it's fine and way better than most anime to live action adaptations.
I've seen many positive reviews and expect to have a blast at the theater. It may be that I was not in the mood, or the movie failed to move me. I didn't "feel" it.
Let's get the obvious things out: the visuals are excellent. But then again, after so many years of CGI refinement, from the MCU to Star Wars, Ready Player One, etc., I came to expect at least this level of animation. Translating the anime/manga style of speed and fight sequences still feels weird, like the physics didn't convince me, even within the flexible physics of that particular world.
Maybe my gripe is that the main actors didn't convey emotions enough for me to empathize. And it's because it was a CG character. I can feel way more empathy from CG characters such as the outstanding Gollum or Cesar. Andy Serkis is on another level. Then the Hugo character felt very, very shallow as well, straight out of an adolescent movie.
And this is the main problem to me: even the Oscar-level actors, such as Christopher Waltz, Jennifer Connelly, and Mahersala Ali, all felt very flat, very one-dimensional, and way, way underutilized. The story itself was very linear, very simple, and unlayered. It's functional, but that's it. I didn't buy the stakes.
I read the mangas in the late 90s, so I don't remember them anymore, just bits and pieces, and some of the sequences closely resemble some of those scenes. Someone who remembers the original story may feel more nostalgia for this adaptation. But as a whole movie, it felt rushed, with not enough development and very little to no character growth.
Compared to the numerous disappointing anime to live-action adaptations, this movie manages to stay on the better side. However, as a standalone movie, it needs more emotional engagement and character development, failing to fully captivate the audience.
Considering the effort that went into this adaptation, I can only give it a 6 out of 10, being very generous. While it may not have fully met my expectations, it's clear that a lot of work was put into bringing this beloved story to life.
Gisaengchung (2019)
A difficult film to digest, but a worth reflecting.
Reviewing this movie is a unique challenge for me. As a Japanese person, I've always had a special connection to Asian cinema, even if I haven't always been a fan of the style. My interest in Korean and Japanese movies is often driven by nostalgia rather than a refined taste for the acting and directing styles. It's not that these movies are bad, it's just that my preferences lean elsewhere.
However, there are exceptions. One Korean movie that truly left a mark on me is Oldboy. If you haven't seen it yet, I urge you to skip the Hollywood remake and dive straight into the original. This movie is a visceral experience that will leave you reeling.
The same feeling applies to Parasite. Again, I need to become more familiar with the director and actors. I went to the theater to watch this mainly because of the many praises, awards, and the surprising Oscar nomination for both the Best International Movie and Best Movie categories. Of course, I had to check it out.
When I first sat down to watch Parasite, I had no idea what to expect. The movie starts off like a slice-of-life soap opera, a slow burner that gradually builds tension. But as the story unfolds, the tension escalates, leading to a gripping climax that will keep you on the edge of your seat.
I can't speak too much, not to spoil the surprises and twists. And, oh boy, there are many twists to this plot. It's best to avoid reading anything about the story so you are surprised.
Overall, the directing is superb. The screenplay is not complicated, and it's very well written. The acting is also competent, mixing moments of comedy and tension very well. But, it feels "dry," if it makes any sense.
This is definitely only a movie for some. And as I have minimal exposition to Korean filmmaking, I don't have many other references than Oldboy (and the rest of the Vengeance Trilogy movies, which I'm not too fond of so much). But Oldboy has such a visceral punch that it's hard to forget, even years after I watched it.
Parasite lacks this punch even though the kind of storytelling is similar in a way: a tragedy. Don't get me wrong; it's a very good movie to go see in the theaters. But IMHO, I don't know why this movie is Oscar material. Alas, yes, there are several other nominees, but I also don't understand why they are Oscar material.
From another perspective, for most of the movie, it reminded me of a Tarantino movie. Again, it still needs the punch. But it's textbook Tarantino through and through. The 2nd half is particularly striking and goes super deep into total madness. That's why you want to go to the theater to watch.
I gave Oldboy a very solid 8 out of 10, and I highly recommend you watch it. Parasite is a bit behind, and I think it deserves a solid 7 out of 10.
1917 (2019)
This could be an IMAX demonstration piece, for sure.
I just returned from the late Sunday screening of 1917 at my favorite local IMAX theater. (I wrote this in January 2020).
I would not see this movie in the theater - yet another war movie. I have to say that war movies bore me. "Oh, look how heroic they were." I think the last good war movie was Clint Eastwood's Letter from Iwo Jima, paired with Flags of Our Fathers because they have the same story told from both points of view. It was genius.
Regarding technical achievement, the last good movie was Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk. That movie was tailor-made for high-tech theaters with the best and loudest Dolby sound system. It's brutal. The story could be more exciting, but the experience is worth it.
And 1917 is more Dunkirk than Letter from Iwo Jima. The story is super shallow. It's so simple you can summarize it in a single phrase. A pair of soldiers must deliver a message to stop troops from falling into the German trap. That's it.
It's an Oscar contender mainly because of its technical achievements. Sam Mendes decided to execute it as if it was a single shot. Of course, there are edits, but the cut points are so surgically planned that you don't feel it. Just one cut point goes black for an extended period because it requires a time jump. But besides that, the gimmick makes you feel like the camera never stopped rolling from beginning to end.
And it works beautifully. You can see the attention to detail in every shot. It's a technical marvel and deserves a lot of technical Oscars, particularly in editing.
The acting is okay, the story is okay, and the direction, editing, and VFX are superb. I don't like Saving Private Ryan. I think the message is wrong there. But even that movie had a far superior and gripping screenplay, so I don't expect 1917 to win any screenplay or best picture Oscars. Parasite is far superior, thousands of miles away.
As Dunkirk before it, 1917 is an experience. You want to go to the best IMAX theater near you. You want a giant screen and the best sound system. This is not a movie you will overthink about. Just experience the journey. And it is glorious. It's already too late, so I hope you had that chance when it was first released in theaters.
That being said, I understand the appeal of WWI or WWII movies. They go back to "simpler" times, a time when we had unknown enemies. The Germans probably felt like aliens to the Americans. If we had a Martian invasion, it probably would have felt like a German invasion in WWI.
Nowadays, everybody and everything is micro-enemies. Most people are just too sensitive to every little thing. That's how peaceful our times are. WWI was one of the most brutal wars in human history. Most people today can't grasp that meaning, which is why movies like Dunkirk or 1917 are so exciting.
Wars of yesteryear are attractive because we know who the "good guys" are and who the "bad guys" are, black and white. Ah, the simpler times. In that regard, sitting down and having fun with all the corpses across the craters and trenches of good old WWI is refreshing. This movie is like a videogame, like Call of Duty or Battlefield. If you're a gamer, you know the drill. This movie could be titled Call of Duty or Battlefield, and it would be a perfect video game adaptation.
A 7 out of 10 is super generous for such a shallow movie with such high technical achievements. It's a lot of fun. Go watch it, and don't overthink it.
Oh yeah! And a BIG shout out to cinematographer Roger Deakon! This guy is a living legend!
John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019)
Another great entry in the saga, but tries too hard to setup the sequel.
The review for this series was long overdue, and finally, I decided to write about it. The first John Wick was a huge surprise in 2014, and you can't help but be hypnotized and in awe of the super tight, beautifully choreographed action scenes.
The plot could be more attractive in the entire series. It's basically Keanu being Keanu, and that's enough. And this series is the true spiritual successor to the original Matrix. All philosophy set aside and just distilling the revolutionary action scenes back then, this series brings back both Keanu and former Matrix stunt coordinator Chad Stahelski and Keanu together.
And a nice easter egg of the iconic phrase, "I need guns, lots of guns" 😁
The making of them is equally interesting; I highly recommend you search for them on YouTube. Damn, they even brought back Laurence Fishburne.
This series requires a certain kind of action movie connoisseur-the kind that is very familiar with Chinese-style wirework and John Woo-style "gun-fu." This genre became increasingly popular after jewels like The Raid, and I do think Chad and Keanu were able to coalesce everything about those movies into a single package that is super slick and elegant.
The first movie could and should have been a stand-alone movie. A single-minded protagonist with a laser-sharp focus on revenge and a series of gun-fu scenes chained together to make an explosive, action-packed flick. A solid 8/10.
The second movie wasn't necessary, but ok, it did a great job setting up the underground lore for this clan of assassins. Ian McShane and Lance Reddick bring a seriousness and gravitas that make it all believable. I really like seeing how the "bureaucracy" of an ancient worldwide underground operation works. But it had to set a cliffhanger for a sequel. It expanded the gun-fu into interesting car-fu sequences and established antagonists that can go toe-to-toe against John. The production value is super high again. But it's a 7/10 for me.
The third, again, is not a conclusion, setting up yet more plot points for future sequels, which hurts this movie more than chapter 2. Many kudos for Hale Barry's sequence, but she was underutilized here. She could have been a major player if the plot had spread thin enough. Now, besides gun-fu, it goes to bike-fu as well. Again, Keanu's commitment and Chad's attention to stunt choreography shine. However, the third act needs to be more explicit. It tries too hard to set up the next sequel, and the plot needs to be tighter. Because of that, it goes down to a 6/10.
Even then, I think Keanu is superb as an actor and a stunt performer. He carries all the movies on his shoulders, and it shows. Again, I highly recommend you check out his intense training.
All in all, they are delightful action movies. Highly recommended.
The Lion King (2019)
Does not come close to the original.
As a long-time Disney fan, I couldn't resist the urge to revisit the remade versions of Aladdin and The Lion King, two films that have held a special place in my heart since I first saw them in 1992 and 1994.
I will be very short on this one: Aladdin is a travesty. It shouldn't exist. I give it a 3/10 because I am in a good mood today. Otherwise, I would be OK with calling it a Golden Raspberry Award. It's that bad.
The best part of Aladdin is definitely Will Smith's efforts and charisma. But the plot was utterly subverted. It misses all the beats that made the original a classic. The music could be more impressive. The new songs could be better. And in a stupid effort to make a better Jasmine princess, they made her worse than the animated version. She's weaker and has way less charisma. The same goes for Jaffar. He doesn't exude an ounce of villainy as the original. He's almost a comedic character.
Children will probably like the colors and stuff, but this won't be a movie they will remember down the line as the classics.
The Lion King is different. I can see that the director had a vision and had to work with the studio's restrictions. He had to try to make real animals charismatic. This is a tall order. The animation works precisely because it can make the characters have exaggerated faces. Real animals simply can't show any emotions; their faces just don't have enough articulations for that. It's almost like playing with dolls.
Even with that limitation, the director's respect for the original plot and emotional beats made for a much more enjoyable experience.
The CGI work is revolutionary. I remember in 2001 when Pixar's Monsters Inc. Showed proper physics-based fur working for the first time. The environment and animal models in The Lion King are so real you could mistake it for a National Geographic documentary. And I can't think of a worse use of this technology than in a Disney movie. They have to tone down to Pixar levels of mixed reality to make it work.
Again, despite that, The Lion King can be a good enough movie to be memorable for children. So it deserves at least a 3/10.
But anyone who grew up with the classic animations will find absolutely nothing here that adds to the nostalgia. They can shatter your memories in the wrong way. Watch The Lion King, but avoid Aladdin like the plague if you must.
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Too much cool-aid. They believed they could get away with anything.
Unfortunately, this one is a huge disappointment. I could give it a 3 out of 5 just because I still fad hope for the franchise going forward, but this movie deserves at most a 2/10. It is this bad.
The first movie's success was largely attributed to the undeniable chemistry between Gal Gadot and Chris Pine. In Wonder Woman 1984, Gadot's solo performance falls short of holding the movie together. The screenwriting, unfortunately, doesn't do Pine justice. He's reduced to a mere source of comedic relief, with limited lines and a poorly executed reappearance. His lines lack the depth and charm that Pine is known for, which ultimately makes the movie feel like a lackluster 9/5 work.
Gal Gadot's acting skills are a subject of debate. Some argue that her delivery of lines lacks depth and emotion, even in scenes that are meant to be poignant. Without the strong writing that characterized the first movie, the chemistry between Gadot and Pine is noticeably absent. This absence, in turn, diminishes the one aspect that made the first movie so memorable.
As many already know, Pedro Pascal killed it as Maxwell Lord. He is the only reason you should go watch this movie. He commits even though the story is nonsensical, his development is brilliant. Many reviewers said Kristen Wiig's Cheetah character was unnecessary for the film, but I beg to differ. She is clearly an outstanding actress, and even though the material she was given was inferior, she was still entertaining to see on screen, at least for the first 2 acts, because the 3rd act with the CG Cheetah was a colossal letdown.
The director was more interested in making statement shots and posed shots than delivering a story that connected with the audience. You can get good still screenshots from the action scenes to use as billboards and wallpapers, and that's it. The first act is divided into 2 disconnected scenes that do nothing to sell the movie. But they have excellent still opportunities. A good example is the Golden Armor, a huge missed opportunity. The armor makes much sense in the 2nd or beginning of the 3rd act before Diana regains her powers. But after that, creating yet more opportunities for posed shots makes no sense.
The ending is appalling. It feels more like the writers just gave up. The movie's whole premise is about this MacGuffin stone that can grant any wish, but it takes something from you in return. Maxwell Lord wishes to become the stone so he can grant wishes and wish anything for himself in return. Wonder Woman starts to lose her powers because she wants Steve Trevor back. And here starts the big problems.
The stone can create walls to divide cities out of thin air. But it needed to bring back Steve's "soul" (?) inside someone else's body. He is still this random guy to anyone else, but for Diana and us, the audience, we see him as Chris Pine. A massive complication with dire implications that could be avoided from the start. Just make him show up from thin air. This MacGuffin can do anything.
In the end, Maxwell reaches the world through broadcast television and makes the world as a whole wish. But the ending has Wonder Woman pleading with the world to give up on all the wishes. The first act is terrible because it does nothing to establish Wonder Woman as a worldwide known figure, so her pleading has no impact. No one should be listening to her.
The writers imply that the entire world only wished for bad things, but no one wished for extremes like the "end of the world" or the "end of an entire race." It also assumes that because Wonder Woman asked politely, they repented and rejected their wishes. What about the blind person who wished to see again? Or the person with paraplegia who wanted to walk again? Or the sad mother who wished to see her killed child again? Or someone who asked to end world famine? They want me to believe that out of 7 billion people, none of those wishes were made?
Again, sloppy writing and directing-this is the gist. They had the chance to make a perfect sequel, but they blew it. It's regrettable.
Invincible (2021)
The animation and the pacing need to improve, a lot.
I finally watched Amazon Prime's Invincible and liked it quite a bit.
I am a fan of The Boys, which is still much more mature and complex storytelling. To summarize, I'd say that Invincible is a much slower burn. The first two episodes are very compelling, and the last two episodes of the season were totally a blast. The issue is the mid-section.
The interesting questions revolve around why Omniman is doing what he's doing, and the answer is shockingly interesting regarding lore and world-building. Still, to get there, we must first put it in the background and focus on Mark Grayson's titular Invincible story. And it's the run-of-the-mill teenager with new powers struggling to juggle what to do while trying to keep his girlfriend and friends from getting alienated.
And this is my first issue with this series: the secondary characters are a chore to watch. Amber and William could be written better, so I want to fast-forward whenever they have screen time. The secondary superheroes are also super flawed. The explosive guy that I always forget the name of, the dupli-kate chick, and the other chick with an R costume. The few exciting characters are Cecil and the Robot, who are very robotic. Monster Girl has an exciting balance between power and weakness that I can see having a good story, but we didn't get that this season.
So the entire run feels very, very slow. They could have summarized half the series into a single episode, and I wouldn't feel lost. Even the mother character is very superficial and flawed. So most of the characters don't have a good dynamic, they don't show significant character development, and it's not only super predictable, but everybody seems defined by cheap stereotypes.
The social justice chick that is also smart, the snarky gay friend, the more mature but ideological friend, etc. They don't feel like real people, just stereotypes. And in this lies the biggest weakness of this show: take away the superpowers and the promise for intergalactic war, and there's not much left to talk about. It feels more like a low-budget, cringe-inducing teenager romcom or dorama.
The animation is okay, but the art style is super simplistic. They do need to find a better Director of Photography-or, more correctly, a good post-production compositor. The battle scenes are terrific indeed. The anime Sakuga levels are good sometimes, but overall, the rest of the show is flat and bland. It lacks depth. It's bearable enough to watch it through, and the more R-rated bloody stuff keeps me from dumping it entirely.
The one thing that saves the animation and compositing is the sound design. The sound sells the weight of each punch and explosion, and I hope they keep it up. The casting for the dubbing actors is also superb. Even though the script is very stiff and challenging, the choice of good actors made it work reasonably well without going into disaster territory. Really, I can't imagine how hard it was for the actors to sell such bad dialogue throughout. Shout out to JK Simmons; he's a legend.
I think the first season does an okay job as a teaser for the next season, which promises more interesting intergalactic stuff, as I said. So, I hope they drop the rom-com shenanigans and focus on the politics and fights, which is where it actually excels.
What sets this show apart from The Boys is the screenwriting and balance. Invincible lacks both. I hope they improve it in the next season. It is a great concept, but it is badly executed.
Oh yeah, it's important to say that I never read the comics, so I have no basis for comparison. And I watched the entire season at 1.5x speed; otherwise, it would bore me to death.
A 5 out of 10 is very generous at this point.
The Suicide Squad (2021)
A good attempt from Gunn, but not nearly good enough.
The Suicide Squad is officially a flop now, and it's regrettable because this is one of the most entertaining superhero movies I've seen in a very long while. We don't have too many contenders, but suffice it to say that I think this is much better than the bland Black Widow, and it goes toe-to-toe with the Snyder Cut version of The Justice League. Compared to previous flops such as the shameful Wonder Woman 1984, this is the best Warner DC released in years.
DC should focus more on rated-R movies like this. Even though it's rated R, I didn't feel uncomfortable during the entire film. The gory sequences are not nearly as intense as those in any 10-year-old first-person shooter game. It's good enough for any modern teenager to consider just plain average.
James Gunn did it again. I like his cinematography style, the editing, and how he blends pop songs into his shots. Each shot feels like just out of a good music video. In terms of production value, this is the whole package.
Unfortunately, this movie fails further scrutiny. At this point, I hope people stop trying to make The Suicide Squad work on the big screen. A rag-tag team of dozens of people could work better in such a short amount of time. They need more time to breathe and for each individual story to grow. Every time, we get one or two characters with a proper arc, and everybody else serves as cannon fodder.
Harley Quinn is one example. I don't understand her character, her motivations, or what she is pursuing. Although she has some of the best and most memorable action sequences, they don't add anything to the overall story. They're just there for show.
Clearly, Gunn wants us to focus on Idris Elba's Bloodsport and a bit on John Cena's Peacemaker, and that's it. Even the Ratcatcher chick is nothing more than a gimmick, a plot device, with no proper arc. It's the same for the Polka Dot guy and the Nanaue Shark thing. They're just there as plot devices, so we never care an ounce about them.
Out of all the bunch, it's Peacemaker I want to see more of. Bloodsport spends the whole movie holding back, and when he finally breaks free, it's not much. They could've been perfect foils for one another, but halfway through the movie, they part ways, and when they converge, it's very unsatisfying.
This movie is good for the visuals, sound effects, and music alone, but better, tighter screenwriting would have helped. I don't get the point of the movie. It goes from nowhere to nowhere.
Shout out to Viola Davis' Amanda Waller. She is in her own league. It's, too. The movie needs to explore her character more, and she is being relegated to not much more than an exposition device. But the few scenes she's in, it's powerful stuff. I love it.
Overall, the movie is too long, most of the characters are not well used, the plot is fragile, and it isn't easy to be invested in the story or the characters. This means I enjoyed it mainly for the well-choreographed gore. And that's it.
ThisThis movie deserves a 5 out of 10 because of Gunn's stylist choices, but not much more.
Free Guy (2021)
Very good time, entertaining, enjoyable, poignant.
Finally, Free Guy is available in PVOD, and I could watch it. Man, this movie is awesome. Let me score it a solid 8 out of 10 right from the start.
This is Ryan Reynolds at his best. If you liked Dead Pool, you will like this one. Aside from a few short clips I stumbled across on social media, I had yet to learn about this movie. I was surprised to see that this is a video game movie done right damn right.
Of course, the story itself is your basic popcorn feel-good movie. Nothing extraordinary, but the production value and how they tell this story are very well done. You won't regret it. It's funny and witty, pleases the eye, and is a good time. I watched it twice already, and it still holds up.
The casting is absolutely on point. All the main actors are perfect for their roles, particularly Jodie Comer. That was a tricky casting because she had to be good enough to perform alongside Ryan and Joe Keery and feel in the right place. If she didn't work, the movie wouldn't work. And it works beautifully. Ryan is as delightful as ever, and Stranger Things' Joe Keery is not too behind.
Taika Waititi adds extra layers of fun, and I can't help but hear Korg sometimes. The extra casting, celebrities, and Easter eggs in this movie just add up to a funny experience.
Director Shawn Levy did a fantastic job of balancing all the pieces together. Cinematography, editing, and special effects, he did know how to use the tools available to him. It's fast-paced, very dynamic, very immersive. He could make a movie with Fortnite and GTA and get away with it. Anyone immersed in the gamer culture will quickly feel at home here. It never feels like a dumb corporate guy shoehorning stuff he doesn't understand, and at the same time, it doesn't feel like a gamer (who doesn't know how to write) trying to appease other gamers with just fan service. It has balance, and more importantly, the story plot - although very unrealistic, of course - doesn't make you cringe.
All in all, it was very worth the wait. We need more movies this good. Disney was smart to let the producers do what they wanted with the crossovers of the properties they already owned. It sometimes feels like a very good YouTube or TikTok production, but this is a good thing for the audience they want to appease.
Again, a very solid 8/10.
Don't Look Up (2021)
How the current administration would deal with a world-ending disaster.
This movie is available now on Netflix, so go see it. It's worth your time. I give it a very solid 8 out of 10.
Now, this was a big surprise for me. I watched one trailer some time ago and largely forgot about it. I remember it being some disaster movie. And I was reminded of it again when I saw the trailer for an upcoming Roland Emmerich movie. I even thought it was going to be the same movie.
A small intro to this movie: a super big disaster is about to happen-a disaster of Roland Emmerich or James Cameron proportions: a new comet is discovered, and scientists calculate that it will 100% for sure hit the earth-an extinction event.
Any sane person would think that such an event would be unanimously accepted and that people and governments around the globe would rally toward some solution. It's either that or extinction.
And this is where the movie shines: it gives us the most accurate depiction on film of what people and governments would do after 2021.
I just tweeted the first thing that came to my head: I loved movies like Independence Day or 2012. Of course, because of the big show, big explosions, and so on, but also because many people try to unify, solve the conflicts, and devise an acceptable solution. Don't get me wrong, many people die in the process, but it's always that optimistic message to endure in the face of destruction.
Don't Look Up is nothing like that: it's the best depiction of real people, real politicians, doing what they actually do in real life. It's bold to show that. It's daring to end this movie the way it did. And I commend the commitment of the director, staff, casting, and everyone involved. It's very cynical. It's very negative. It's humanity at its worst. And what should look like a parody feels more like a documentary.
In terms of production values, it had a very tight budget, so don't expect any groundbreaking special effects of any sort. But what it didn't have in VFX, it more than outdid itself with the perfect casting. The actors were terrific, and the casting had an army of recognizable superstars, such as in the leading roles with Jennifer Lawrence, Leonardo DiCaprio, Maryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, and more.
Leonardo DiCaprio plays someone like Dr. Fauci in real life, though the real-life counterpart is nowhere near as redeemable as Dr. Mandy in the movie. Not by a long shot. Mark Rylance plays the role of an influencer billionaire like Bill Gates, and this role is excellently written. Maryl Streep plays someone like Joe Biden, but she plays a much brighter and more witty president than her real-life counterpart. Cate Blanchett plays a TV show host to perfection: oblivious to real-world events. She perfectly represents the media in general. And so on, and so forth, you know how this will play out.
The only aspect of the story that I found very unrealistic was when they devised a proper solution to the problem way ahead of schedule at the beginning of the movie. That would never happen in real life. All other aspects were realistic and exactly how I imagined them happening behind closed doors.
I love this movie for its honesty and even more because it was produced and presented on Netflix. I wouldn't have thought that they had it in them. Good for them.
I want to give this movie a 10/10 for being the first post-pandemic movie that doesn't sugarcoat anything. But 8 out of 10 is plenty for this budget movie.
Do not watch this if you want to be entertained. And do not watch it alone if you suffer high levels of anxiety. You were warned.
Arcane: League of Legends (2021)
Visually great. It's unfortunate the story can't keep up until the end.
I watched Arcane until the end, and it disappointed me a lot. I will give it a generous 5 out of 10.
Please understand that the animation and production values are super high. It's one of the best animation qualities I've seen in a long while. The art direction level is out of this world good. I wish all other CGI animations looked this good. It's akin to the feeling I had watching something like Spiderverse. It's that good.
The first three or four episodes are also excellent. I never played League of Legends, so I am completely unfamiliar with the characters and lore, and I couldn't care less about the game. But the story felt fresh, dynamic, and emotional. It hit all the right notes, and that got me pretty excited.
Then, the big event around the end of episode 3 happened, and the story took a really big turn for the worse. Everything that felt fresh and emotional up until this point was discarded. After that, everything up until episode 9 was super poorly written.
I am still determining where the story wants to go. That whole hextec idea is excellent, but they never explored it too much. It felt utterly unnecessary.
Many characters and relationships presented in this second half felt super forced. For example, counselor Heimerdinger, everybody always says how old he is, how much he has achieved in life, and how wise he is. But he felt like someone who only likes to give cliche speeches, and every action he takes felt unwise and, at worst, harmful. I wouldn't say I like this character.
The relationship between Vi and Caitlyn felt super forced. They don't have any reason to feel attracted to each other other than fulfilling the fact that they are together in the game. The first half of the story gives a lot of reasons to believe in the relationship between Vi, Powder, and Vander. It was beautifully written. But Vi and Caitlyn felt just like an afterthought.
And this is the common trope throughout this show's run. Medarda looked super cool, but it's another story that leads nowhere. Initially, it felt like a mysterious, intelligent character with a hidden agenda and a good plan. By the end, she felt out of control, and everything was just a coincidence. Jayce is a super genius; by the end, he feels like an adolescent facing real-world problems for the first time. They destroyed all the characters for no good reason.
But the worst part for me was the world-building. I was digging the setting, the upper city vs. Undercity dynamic, and such. But again, the writers were unable to justify the animosity. What's the reason for this segregation to exist? Is the upper city exploring slavery? Are they exploring some natural resource that only exists in the undercity? They always need to make it clear one way or the other.
The way it's written, there is no exploration whatsoever. Both cities seem self-sufficient and independent-so much so that in the end, the council is about to concede the undercity independence just like that, just like they don't need anything from them. So, the writers wanted us to feel like the luxury of the upper city depended on the exploration of the undercity, but they failed to show us how so.
It was a cheap cliche attempt to say, ' Oh, they are more prosperous than us. Therefore, they are evil in some way,' but the story shows that the undercity misery comes exclusively from within the undercity mafia, and that's it. They actually complain that the upper city is not helping. But again, the way it's written, I don't see any good reason why they should help.
Actually, the way it's written makes it feel like the upper city is better off completely cutting ties with the undercity as Silco and Jinx, from the undercity, start to create mayhem in the upper town. So it's all the under city's own fault for being unable to deal with their own people, creating problems for another city that is never exploring them, and then complaining that they don't get any help. This line of thought is preposterous and clearly out of the naive minds of an adolescent.
The main character, Jinx, was way more compelling than the child Powder. But as Jinx, it just felt like a budget Harley Quinn.
Arcane is a missed opportunity because it starts telling a very compelling story, but halfway through, the writers run out of ideas and revert to old cliches. It's unfortunate.
Closer (2004)
There is a clear structThe movie is about the meaning of "love¨ told through 4 different POVs.
I re-watch this movie once every 10 years or so. Every time, it makes me reflect on different things.
I watched it again in 2022-almost 20 years after I first watched it. And yes, our mindset regarding relationships has changed dramatically in this many years.
I see this movie today in this way: it's a movie about four ways to say "I love you:" two ways of telling the truth and two ways of lying.
Jude Law's Dan and Natalie Portman's Alice say the truth.
Clive Owen's Larry and Julia Robert's Anna tell lies.
They all look for what they perceive as "love," but none of them can ever truly "love." The movie makes this evident when the couples mix.
At first, Dan and Alice love each other. They both tell the truth-at least what they perceive as "truth."
Then Larry meets Anna, and they are good together, telling lies. They know they are lying to each other, and that's okay.
Interestingly, both Dr. Larry and the stripper Alice/Jane are well aware of the kind of relationship they want. They are not trying to sugarcoat it; they are raw and truthful to themselves. Larry is okay with fake, comfortable love, and Jane is okay with true, painful love.
Anna prefers fake love but tries to seek true love and passion. Dan prefers true love but tries to seek fake love and desire.
We can see what they truly are when they both break up with their respective partners.
Larry is a dominant alpha male, and he's not afraid to embrace it. He doesn't desire true love, just control. Anna likes to be controlled, and finally, she learns and embraces it.
Dan is searching for "true" love, and as a writer, he romanticizes ideal love. Alice is actually prepared to do so. But she loves herself more, which is the definition of "true love." Love is reflection; love is what we see of ourselves reflected in the other person. But Dan needs the ideal romance. But ideal doesn't exist. They can't be together any longer once the "innocence" is lost.
Dan is so blindly looking for the "truth," ideal love, that he doesn't even realize that Alice was actually Jane all along. Larry couldn't be with Jane because she couldn't be controlled, and Anna couldn't be with Dan because Dan couldn't assert control.
They all wanted love, though none of them could actually love it. At least, that's what I got from the story.
Of course, this is all shallow bar-psychology. It's a simple case study with very one-dimensional characters to make the differences more apparent. But what's scary is that most normal people in the real world are very shallow like that, so it's fitting.
Natalie Portman and Clive Owen are easily the best actors in the movie. Some say that Julia Roberts was not so good because she is the most challenging character to portray. Since the beginning, she has shown borderline symptoms. She is not bothered to give in to a fast kiss from a client. She's not bothered to be approached by a stranger in a public place saying obscenities. She's not bothered to have sex with her ex, calling her a prostitute. She was not concerned about Dan stalking her for a year. And Dan is a classic stalker: he thinks obsessions are love, as most stalkers do. Dan and Anna are both broken.
Jane accepts Dan because she thinks love is pain, and Larry accepts Anna because he thinks love is control. So they are also broken. The story makes a point of saying that none of them are correct; none of them loved anyone. All the relationships, the initial, the cross-over, and the return, are toxic.
"True Love" doesn't exist and saying "I love you" is just easy words. Only Jane and Larry understood that.
The Batman (2022)
A glowing masterpiece. Makes Nolan proud.
I just came back home after watching The Batman on IMAX. And let me say in advance: it's a 10/10 reboot. It seemed impossible, but Matt Reeves deserves a lot of kudos for delivering the very first true "Batman" as in the comics, instead of an exaggerated and over-the-top version for live-action.
This is Batman, in his second year as the masked vigilante. So he still lacks experience, he's unsure of himself. A perfect sequel to the super classic Batman: Year One, by Miller and Mazzucchelli. If you didn't read that yet, I highly recommend you do it first.
And finally, this is a truly grounded Batman. Different from Nolan's more "Shakespearean" approach. Reeves' Batman is more of a detective story with a psychological thriller structure that reminds us of Zodiac or Seven. And this is very refreshing. It's 3 hours long, but the story is engaging enough to keep us from feeling tired. If you don't like investigation stories, you won't like this Batman. This is not a popcorn blockbuster filled with bombastic action. This is way more interesting.
It's very difficult to not discuss spoilers, so I will not do that in the first few paragraphs, but I want to discuss where the story goes from here. I will mark SPOILERS before writing about it down below.
First of all, wow, I think this is the best cast of actors in any Batman. If you told me that Robert Pattinson would be a great Batman choice, in 2008, I would have laughed at your face, very hard. Anyone would. But in recent years he has proved that he's more than a teenager favorite. I changed my mind after Nolan's Tenet. And wow, he does deliver. He looks great in the mask, I can truly see Batman there. He is also a very good young Bruce Wayne. He didn't have enough to work on Bruce just yet, because it's Batman Year Two, so he's still not the super sharp, super clever Bruce in his 40s. This is Bruce in his 30s, so he's still edgy and unsure. Pattinson portrays this stage of Bruce very well. It's a super solid Batman, one that rivals Christian Bale's version.
Second of all, wow again, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle is by far the best version of Catwoman in live-action to date, bar none. Sorry, Anne Hathaway doesn't come close. Zoe's version is very true to Batman Year One, both visually and in attitude. Previous versions worried more about the visuals, but not about the character. In all previous movies, she wasn't important to the story, at all. In this incarnation, with a young and inexperienced Batman, she is a key point to the success of this story. We can't take away Catwoman and make this story work. So kudos for finally delivering a Catwoman that actually had a reason to exist in the story.
Third, Jeffrey Wright is the first Jim Gordon that really feels like a true, working detective. Yes, Gary Oldman still is visually much closer to the comics' version. But Jeffrey Wright, as Zoe Kravitz, delivers a character that actually has more things to do than just look the part. And that's one problem I have with all Nolan's movies. They are laser-focused on Batman, and the secondary characters have very little to do in the stories. The Dark Knight is just Batman and the Joker. Dark Knight Rises is Batman and Bane and a twist ending that heavily destroys Bane as a character, the worst of the trilogy. Meanwhile, Gordon, Catwoman, and everybody else mostly just shows up, and they're gone, and you don't notice them.
Michael Cane is still the best Alfred, and Michael Gough still is the one that feels more comics accurate. But Cane's Alfred speaks too much, feels more like a coach. And Gough's Alfred didn't have a lot to do. Now Andy Serkis' Alfred is more balanced. He didn't have a lot to do, but I think he was good enough to deliver a convincing Alfred for this version of Batman.
Now the villains were a mixed bag. As everyone already knows Colin Ferrell steals the show. He's the best incarnation of the Penguin and he is very convincing as a mobster. Although he was not the main antagonist, I can see his character grow from here.
Paul Dano was a fantastic Riddler. I never thought of the Riddler as a psychopathic serial killer, but now that I saw it, it seems very obvious that this was the only way to handle this character. Every other incarnation of the Riddler was handled very poorly and he always end up being goofy. Remember Jim Carrey? Now, this was a total 180 degrees shift and it's what makes this whole movie work. This is a very ominous presence.
Different from Nolan's over-the-top and explosive Dark Knight, Reeves was super smart in toning down Batman to be more a street-level hero. He's still too strong, but Nolan's version was too buffed, he was too strong, too fast, with gadgets that could almost be in a Star Trek movie. Many people consider those movies "grounded" and "more realistic", but that was more about the darker tone of the movie. Batman itself was almost unbelievable.
Now, the only miscast was John Turturro as Carmine Falcone. And it's a bummer because in this story Falcone plays a crucial role. But I can't see Turturro and not be reminded of goofy roles such as that wacky agent from Transformers. He doesn't have the gravitas to be the boss of the gangsters. I think they could've cast any of the mob leaders from The Many Saints of Newark, such as Jon Bernthal, Alessandro Nivola, or why not OG Ray Liotta himself?
I'm focusing on the characters a lot because they are the sole reason this movie works at all. Again compared to the previous movies, Nolan likes to make big operas, big Shakespearean dramas, something to watch while listening to something like Beethoven's No. 9 or Chariots of Fire or something like that. Nolan's Batman and Joker are Shakespearean dramatic characters. Nothing wrong with that, but it takes away from the story and mostly from the other characters.
In Reeve's incarnation, he is truly grounded. Gotham City is fully realized and finally works as a character. The story progresses with everybody playing a key role in it. The plot thickens and the big reveal does remind me of Finch's Seven. I'll come back to the finale in the spoiler section.
In terms of visuals and production values, again this movie delivers. It's dark and gritty as we like it, but it's also believable enough. This version of Gotham sets itself clearly as New York City, and therefore Batman has more mobility using a bike than a car, which I think was a smart choice. Because Batman wouldn't be able to go anywhere in New York's traffic with the Batmobile. So the car is used sparingly in very specific situations and the rest is done by motorcycle.
Batman relies less on gimmicky spear guns, and finally, it's not easy to just jump off buildings. At least not for Batman in Year Two. I like the way he's still inexperienced and functions less like a super ninja and more like a brawler.
Undeniable 10/10.
The Batman (2022)
A glowing masterpiece. Makes Nolan proud.
I just came back home after watching The Batman on IMAX. And let me say in advance: it's a 10/10 reboot. It seemed impossible, but Matt Reeves deserves a lot of kudos for delivering the very first true "Batman" as in the comics, instead of an exaggerated and over-the-top version for live-action.
This is Batman, in his second year as the masked vigilante. So he still lacks experience, he's unsure of himself. A perfect sequel to the super classic Batman: Year One, by Miller and Mazzucchelli. If you didn't read that yet, I highly recommend you do it first.
And finally, this is a truly grounded Batman. Different from Nolan's more "Shakespearean" approach. Reeves' Batman is more of a detective story with a psychological thriller structure that reminds us of Zodiac or Seven. And this is very refreshing. It's 3 hours long, but the story is engaging enough to keep us from feeling tired. If you don't like investigation stories, you won't like this Batman. This is not a popcorn blockbuster filled with bombastic action. This is way more interesting.
It's very difficult to not discuss spoilers, so I will not do that in the first few paragraphs, but I want to discuss where the story goes from here. I will mark SPOILERS before writing about it down below.
First of all, wow, I think this is the best cast of actors in any Batman. If you told me that Robert Pattinson would be a great Batman choice, in 2008, I would have laughed at your face, very hard. Anyone would. But in recent years he has proved that he's more than a teenager favorite. I changed my mind after Nolan's Tenet. And wow, he does deliver. He looks great in the mask, I can truly see Batman there. He is also a very good young Bruce Wayne. He didn't have enough to work on Bruce just yet, because it's Batman Year Two, so he's still not the super sharp, super clever Bruce in his 40s. This is Bruce in his 30s, so he's still edgy and unsure. Pattinson portrays this stage of Bruce very well. It's a super solid Batman, one that rivals Christian Bale's version.
Second of all, wow again, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle is by far the best version of Catwoman in live-action to date, bar none. Sorry, Anne Hathaway doesn't come close. Zoe's version is very true to Batman Year One, both visually and in attitude. Previous versions worried more about the visuals, but not about the character. In all previous movies, she wasn't important to the story, at all. In this incarnation, with a young and inexperienced Batman, she is a key point to the success of this story. We can't take away Catwoman and make this story work. So kudos for finally delivering a Catwoman that actually had a reason to exist in the story.
Third, Jeffrey Wright is the first Jim Gordon that really feels like a true, working detective. Yes, Gary Oldman still is visually much closer to the comics' version. But Jeffrey Wright, as Zoe Kravitz, delivers a character that actually has more things to do than just look the part. And that's one problem I have with all Nolan's movies. They are laser-focused on Batman, and the secondary characters have very little to do in the stories. The Dark Knight is just Batman and the Joker. Dark Knight Rises is Batman and Bane and a twist ending that heavily destroys Bane as a character, the worst of the trilogy. Meanwhile, Gordon, Catwoman, and everybody else mostly just shows up, and they're gone, and you don't notice them.
Michael Cane is still the best Alfred, and Michael Gough still is the one that feels more comics accurate. But Cane's Alfred speaks too much, feels more like a coach. And Gough's Alfred didn't have a lot to do. Now Andy Serkis' Alfred is more balanced. He didn't have a lot to do, but I think he was good enough to deliver a convincing Alfred for this version of Batman.
Now the villains were a mixed bag. As everyone already knows Colin Ferrell steals the show. He's the best incarnation of the Penguin and he is very convincing as a mobster. Although he was not the main antagonist, I can see his character grow from here.
Paul Dano was a fantastic Riddler. I never thought of the Riddler as a psychopathic serial killer, but now that I saw it, it seems very obvious that this was the only way to handle this character. Every other incarnation of the Riddler was handled very poorly and he always end up being goofy. Remember Jim Carrey? Now, this was a total 180 degrees shift and it's what makes this whole movie work. This is a very ominous presence.
Different from Nolan's over-the-top and explosive Dark Knight, Reeves was super smart in toning down Batman to be more a street-level hero. He's still too strong, but Nolan's version was too buffed, he was too strong, too fast, with gadgets that could almost be in a Star Trek movie. Many people consider those movies "grounded" and "more realistic", but that was more about the darker tone of the movie. Batman itself was almost unbelievable.
Now, the only miscast was John Turturro as Carmine Falcone. And it's a bummer because in this story Falcone plays a crucial role. But I can't see Turturro and not be reminded of goofy roles such as that wacky agent from Transformers. He doesn't have the gravitas to be the boss of the gangsters. I think they could've cast any of the mob leaders from The Many Saints of Newark, such as Jon Bernthal, Alessandro Nivola, or why not OG Ray Liotta himself?
I'm focusing on the characters a lot because they are the sole reason this movie works at all. Again compared to the previous movies, Nolan likes to make big operas, big Shakespearean dramas, something to watch while listening to something like Beethoven's No. 9 or Chariots of Fire or something like that. Nolan's Batman and Joker are Shakespearean dramatic characters. Nothing wrong with that, but it takes away from the story and mostly from the other characters.
In Reeve's incarnation, he is truly grounded. Gotham City is fully realized and finally works as a character. The story progresses with everybody playing a key role in it. The plot thickens and the big reveal does remind me of Finch's Seven. I'll come back to the finale in the spoiler section.
In terms of visuals and production values, again this movie delivers. It's dark and gritty as we like it, but it's also believable enough. This version of Gotham sets itself clearly as New York City, and therefore Batman has more mobility using a bike than a car, which I think was a smart choice. Because Batman wouldn't be able to go anywhere in New York's traffic with the Batmobile. So the car is used sparingly in very specific situations and the rest is done by motorcycle.
Batman relies less on gimmicky spear guns, and finally, it's not easy to just jump off buildings. At least not for Batman in Year Two. I like the way he's still inexperienced and functions less like a super ninja and more like a brawler.
Undeniable 10/10.
Thor: Love and Thunder (2022)
Feels like Taika exaggerated way too much.
Thor: Love and Thunder has no Love and no Thunder to talk about. It's difficult to even begin, but let's do this.
I returned home from the theater (july 2022), trying to make sense of what I had just seen. Right out of the gate, I will say this is not the worst MCU movie to date. Dark World and even the atrocious Antman movies are below. I'd say it's a tie with Black Window. Another unnecessary movie that lost its way. It's 4 out of 10, and I'm being generous.
To be fair, the visuals and the soundtrack are actually very good. The production value is the one good thing that didn't make this journey unbearable. The general idea of the plot is also nothing to sneeze at. But my summary is: Taika Waititi is a genius. He can make gold with whatever garbage they throw at him. He proved himself by reviving Thor after the disastrous Dark World into the cool Ragnarok.
They asked him to perform the same miracle, unrestrained. And I think this happens if you leave Taika unchecked: he tries everything and cuts nothing. And the thing this movie needed the most was better editing, especially cutting a lot of things off.
Korg was great in Ragnarok. Because it was a very minor part. The comical relief was used very sparingly, and it worked. Now they turned the notch up to 11, and it's too much Korg. The joke of Asgardians of the Galaxy at the epilogue of Endgame was great. But again, Love and Thunder take too damn long lingering on this Guardians joke.
The first section of the movie, closing up the Endgame joke, took too damn long. It could be dealt with in a very fast 5 minutes montage. But Taika liked the joke so much that he overdid it. And then you have the conflict between the tone the director wanted and the tone that the plot required. The director clearly wanted a light-hearted Ragnarok 2-like style. The plot of Gorr is a very tragic, dark, and serious storyline. If the Guardians section took too damn long, the Gorr introduction was too damn short.
He's a great villain, but we see a short montage of him losing his daughter and just making an exposition dump with God Rapu. Show, don't tell. He gets the necrosword out of nowhere and from there becomes the so-called God Butcher. But it's too short. I would have cut most of the Guardians scenes down to 5 minutes and increased the Gorr introduction by at least 10 minutes because it seems much more interesting and relevant to this movie.
Another carried over consequence from the other movie: the New Asgard city turned tourism attraction and the Matt Damon theater that was a short joke in Ragnarok. It had a context before because it was another Loki shenanigan. But here, it was just a very long exposition section for the broken Mjolnir arc. But it breaks the meme. It was fun back then because if you didn't pay attention, you'd miss that the actors were Matt Damon and Hemsworth's brother. But here, they made their roles take more time with close-ups. And this breaks the meme aspect and incorporates them as actual scenes for this movie. And it doesn't work. This is the classic taking the joke too seriously.
You could've made a more dramatic flashback montage with Hella herself breaking Mjolnir, taking far less time. And on the note of New Asgard. The Valkyrie was a great addition to Ragnarok, and she had a role to play there. But since then, they have no idea what to do with her. And here again, she did absolutely nothing. They could have just cut her, and the story wouldn't have unfolded differently. We already have Korg for comic relief; now they added Valkyrie as another comic relief. There's too much comic relief in this movie.
Then there's Jane Foster's arc inspired by the cancer thing from the comics. And that's fine. But there's a big MCU problem here. My girlfriend pointed it out in the theater: what about Wakanda? What about the other gods? The world post-Thanos has Wakanda. Shuri was able to make surgery and take a bullet off the spine of that Shield's agent (I forgot his character name, but it's the Hobbit guy) like it's nothing. They imply that the Vibranium-based technology is unmatched to the point of nano brain surgery on Vision. And you want me to believe they don't have the cure or even much better treatment for cancer?
Not only that, both Valkyrie and Thor seem to have this vast networking with several other Gods, several realms, and several different species in far more advanced technology states than us. Think of Nova. Thor has Stormbreaker, which is basically space Uber. He can teleport to any part of the Universe in the blink of an eye. And you want me to believe there's no cure for cancer anywhere in the known Universe at this point?
The writer could forcefully patch this if he incorporated the whole Dark World's Aether, making her condition particularly unique because she had the Aether in her body. But again, they wasted too much time on jokes and not so much on the movie's stakes. Gorr didn't have much of an introduction. Jane's cancer didn't have enough development for anyone to care. Actually, they treat it like it's nothing. This movie has too little stake and too much flashiness.
And when I say that they wasted too much time on jokes. The goats. It was completely unnecessary and annoying, and they insisted on it for far too long. I hate the goats. And the costumes. Thor's new uniform feels more like a cheap Aliexpress cosplay than a warrior garment. And they used the whole Power Rangers transformation joke too much, again. Thor is basically a Power Ranger at this point.
We have two characters that were supposed to have tragic arcs, Jane and Gorr. But because there were far too many jokes all the time, their stories got diluted to the point that we don't care. The ending makes no sense. The whole "worthiness" thing means nothing at this point. Mjolnir and Stormbreaker were reduced to anime tsundere characters. Korg and Valkyrie didn't have to be here. The whole Korg narration works at first, but repeated too many times becomes very boring.
Again, visually the movie is stunning. Great visuals. Hemsworth is in his prime. Battle scenes, taken in isolation, were very well built. Too many great scenes are poorly mixed with too many jokes, and very sloppy editing kills the pace and the tragic storyline. I would go as far as to say that if a better editor took the realm and re-edited this movie without Taika in the room, we would have a movie that I could add 1 or 2 points more, bringing it to at least a respectable 6 out of 10. But the way this movie is right now, it's a 4, at most.
Seems like Taika can't be left unchecked. I would say that maybe it was the opposite, Disney demanding too much of him. But the parts that I feel are extra are exactly the Taika-like jokes. This is easily his most unbalanced work. It's a shame because the overall plot has a lot of potentials, and the production value is still very good, but the pieces were glued all wrong. That's my take. Not worth going to the theater to watch this. Wait for the Disney+ release.
Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)
Not bad. But expected way more.
I had the opportunity to watch Avatar: The Way of the Water in the 4D IMAX room at TCL Chinese Theater in Los Angeles while I was there on vacation a few days ago (jan 2023). Highly recommend there; it's not a crowded room though I don't care about 4D seats. They move, have some mild air jets, and that's it. More important is the high framerate that gives the 3D effect a much sharper look. I'm not sure if my session was a fixed framerate or variable; if it was variable, I didn´t notice. I was fully immersed in the movie.
Again, this Avatar's gimmick is the projection room's technology. The first Avatar debuted in 3D in theaters, and this second Avatar perfects it. That's the gist of it and why you want to watch it in a good IMAX 3D theater. CGI finally reached true photorealism, which doesn't feel like cheap videogame cut scenes. Yes, it has an artificial tint, but it's not a cheap experience. You know it was expensive.
Because of audio and visual production value alone, this movie is a 10/10. But the story leaves a lot to be desired, and it is not even a 4/10. So I will average it to a fair 7/10 experience.
The acting and the casting were spot-on. Every actor brought their A-game to this movie, especially if you consider that everybody had to act under very annoying motion capture suits all the time. Remarkably, they were all able to do it. Even more so, considering that they had several stunt people acting in the underwater sequences. I was very captivated by the performances. Sigourney Weaver deserves extra kudos for perfectly portraying a 14-year-old troubled teenager. I didn´t know it was her today. I really thought it was a very talented young actress playing Kiri.
I don't have any complaints about the actors and stunt people. The same goes for the audio effects and soundtrack. Combined with the CGI visuals, they complemented each other to a beautiful underwater ballet. As I said, the production values alone are worth the value of admission.
My only complaint is the screenwriting. It was comparably very weak, full of plot holes and easy shortcuts. The first Avatar is yet another version of the Pocahontas story. Evil greedy colonizers bully the poor native Navis and destroy the ecosystem. And again, those same evil colonizers are back. Worse, they are all portrayed as comically stupid and very unbelievable. People are not evil just for the sake of being evil or just blindly going after easy cash. Well, yeah, there are scammers like that. But 2 movies in, any futuristic government would have played the diplomacy card by now, especially now that Jake Sully and his crew are fully embedded within the Navi community. Really, a few Zoom meetings would have avoided a lot of headaches. The expensive headache, I should add. The economics of the whole invasion makes no sense whatsoever. And yes, costly endeavors do take economics into consideration.
It feels cheap when every evil character is yet another Coyote after Road Runner.
Even though the world-building clearly had a lot of attention, the screenwriting broke the experience again. When Jake Sully and his family had to flee to the sea community, the sea aliens were depicted as a bunch of a-holes and bullies. The entire 2nd act is the concept of forest Navis having to adapt to life underwater. And the sea people are harsh, like, "hey guys, don't bully those forest monkeys too much. Yes, they are weak and useless, and babies have better water skills, but let's be nice with them". They literally say it like that. The bullying is relentless, so you assume that, yeah, it makes sense. As a human being, I would struggle to hold my breath underwater for several minutes.
So there is this sequence of montages of the Sully family struggling and learning to live there. But then we move to the evil crew looking for them, realizing that only a little time has passed. Days, maybe a few weeks. I was expecting something like "a few months later," at the very least. But then, all of a sudden, the forest family is super comfy underwater. What gives? Wasn´t it super tricky? Are all of them coincidentally gifted? That broke the story for me.
The 3rd act makes no sense whatsoever. Without giving a lot of spoilers, the sea aliens are very inconsistent. They have absolutely no murder code. Not even for revenge. But then the evil people kill their relatives, and everybody is like, "they have to die today." Didn't you outcast your own because he took revenge on the murderers of his kids? All of a sudden, it's allowed?? And when we reach the final battle, it's only the Sully family against the evil guys, and everybody of the sea people disappears? It could be more consistent.
The writing is very shallow, most of the characters are very shallow, and the evil colonizers are Coyote-level stupid. The acting tries its best. I'm amazed they could play convincing characters with this level of poor writing. Seriously.
I also understand that they wanted to put Sully as a supporting character this time and his kids in the forefront. It does work as the kids are very well played. But the way they put Sully and Neytiri aside felt like character assassination. Compare them in both movies; it's unjustifiable. Again, the way they did it is bad writing. So the conclusion is that the Achilles' hill of this movie is the writing. Hollywood is in dire need of better screenwriters.
I think Avatar is a movie worth watching in theaters because of its unique 3D experience, but no one will call it a masterpiece for its writing. There are kids' movies with a better plot.
The only reason Avatar's box office surpasses Top Gun is because of that unique 3D experience. But Top Gun is a superior movie overall, no doubt about that. The incentive is that watching Avatar on a smartphone is a waste of time, it is all about blue people under blue water. It would just be a blue mess in a tiny screen. It requires IMAX.
So yeah, 7 out of 10 is very generous.
Don't Worry Darling (2022)
Poor re-adaptation of The Stepford Wives.
I tried to watch this movie on my flight back from California yesterday (jan 2023). What a stupid movie. Even a 1 out of 10 is super generous. It didn't deserve to exist.
I will cut to the chase: this is a worse version of The Stepford Wives meshed with Sword Art Online. I would say The Matrix, but that would be genuinely unfair to The Matrix.
Now that I think about it, I wonder if the intention was to be another remake of the Stepford Wives, as the 2004 Nicole Kidman version is already a remake of the 1975 original. If it wasn't the case, this is awful plagiarism. It blatantly steals many aspects of those movies.
2004 Stepford Wives is a delightful, reasonably well-made movie for its time. It works because it's a comedy satire.
This 2022 movie does want to take itself very seriously, which is its undoing. The direction needs to be corrected. And, as usual, the screenwriting could be better.
I will spoil a small part because I don't recommend you watch it. It could be a better use of time. The story happens in a Sword Art Online universe: it's "the metaverse"; it's virtual reality. They have one rule: do not go outside to the headquarters. And people go there twice. It's a virtual world. Why is there a forbidden place that is fully unlocked??? This hole alone breaks the entire story. And this is not nitpicking. If you're going to conjure a virtual reality in a movie that desperately wants to take itself too seriously, then yes, you have to have the minimum amount of logic.
There are several plot holes. The screenwriter and the director didn't even try. And it's a shame because I like Florence Pugh a lot, and she tries her best with the poor text she's given. Chris Pratt and Harry Styles are entirely wasted.
This movie is a travesty. It doesn't need to exist.
Go watch The Stepford Wives. And if you want good virtual reality-related movies, go see The 13th Floor, The Matrix. Damn, even Sword Art Online is superior (ew). Even The Lawnmower Man is superior at this point.