Change Your Image
kezman436
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019)
The archetype of today's action blockbuster, for better or worse
A cliched spy plot driven by a virus MacGuffin. Two stars who rely on quips, banter and physical presence over heart. Even including two A - list cameos (both previous collaborators with the director or star), everyone here's merely a brand, portraying themselves, bolstering their own egos and performing their respective 'schticks'. Johnson in particular, whose production company is behind this, brags about his own 'Johnson', and fits in an eyebrow raise.
Might as well be a comic - book film, given that everyone seems invincible (and the villan's literally a cyborg). Everything's turned up to 11, and make sure you stay for all four credits scenes.
That said, the third act picks it up significantly; a distinctive setting, greater focus on characters, more heart, and action that feels motivated and goal - oriented. You can still practically see Johnson pulling the strings behind the scenes, and the entire set piece comes off as his mandate. Overall, a mid - tier 'Fast' entry.
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024)
Up there with the best of the franchise
Miller's done it again; another bonkers entry that continues to push the franchise further, with lore equally as inventive as the action. AT-J excels as the fierce protagonist, and Hemsworth disappears into a villain that's sadistic as well as cartoonishly funny; great to see an A - list MCU actor play against type.
I counted three glaring plot holes, and despite being the longest MM by a mile, it's still much lighter on action than FR. But it makes up for it with a meatier story and a heavier focus on creative world - building, and it's as good as any other entry, if not better. Probably should've released 4 - 5 years ago.
Tenet (2020)
"Don't try to understand it, feel it" is Nolan's "Somehow, Palpatine returned".
Nolan's pacing has always been breakneck, and whilst it works to keep his films engaging, the pitfall is that a lot of complex exposition is condensed and hard to follow (see 'Oppie'). I at least felt like I followed that one much more closely on the second viewing, but after seeing 'Tenet' the same number of times, I don't know if I'll ever be able to decode its mammoth chronological enigma.
That said, Nolan's a very aesthetically - focused filmmaker, and he has a knack for immersing you into the world of his stories, perhaps more so than anyone else. They feel special; you're entering a distinctive space from the first frame, and you're leaving it when the credits roll. Lighting, lensing, camera movement, colour and composition are all exquisite, and he hits blockbuster visuals out of the park. 'Tenet' may be one of Nolan's most self - indulgent and messiest films, but it's at least one of his coolest.
Also, it never helps when crucial exposition is incomprehensibly muffled; doesn't matter how strong your dialogue skills are at that point. It's like illegible handwriting.
Napoleon (2023)
NAP-oleon
(literally struggled to stay awake)
Phoenix's casting has always puzzled me; a mumbling, withdrawn actor playing a French emperor with an American accent. I didn't dislike his portrayal, but I wonder how the film would've changed if they'd cast a chameleon (e.g. Christian Bale), who could transform himself, put on an accent, and 'disappear' into the role, aided by hair and make - up.
Sometimes engaging, often dull, mostly just watchable.
Interestingly, Scott has said he kept this cut around 2.5 hours, as he thinks theatrical experiences longer than that start to drag, and he'll release a 4 - hour cut on streaming. I think it's a very astute evaluation of theatrical and streaming films as different art forms, which Scorsese should learn from.
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)
Formulaic, hollow, and dreary
Tonally, technically and aesthetically, I felt it was very competent, and reminiscent of the franchise. However, I don't think the nuts and bolts of the plot and the Dial were elaborated, distinctive or engaging enough. The plot felt more like a hollow vehicle for set pieces.
Longer than necessary in my opinion, and not sure if they strayed far enough from the 'race against the Nazis for treasure' formula. Jones' allies in this film weren't hugely memorable, and made me realise the importance of entertaining allies in previous instalments.
I think overall, they didn't get the tone quite right for what should have been a loving celebration.
The Equalizer 3 (2023)
Solid, though just business as usual
I've enjoyed the entire trilogy, and its blend of personal character study with vigilante action, though it's unnecessarily brutal at times. Denzel's one of my all - time favourite actors, and endlessly watchable as a trained assassin with a good heart. He's invaluable to these films, and Fuqua's direction is efficient.
This one offers a distinctive Italian setting, but otherwise, it's suprising how little it innovates on the franchise formula. Less focus on Denzel's character, which was previously a highlight. Equalizer 2 almost felt like it had more of the consequences of a finale, compared to this film.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
Appropriately deeper and darker; a more timely adaptation
Watching the 70's film as an adult, I was struck by how much the story relies on adolescent naivety, and how an older perspective makes it more unglamorous. Charlie's impoverished family, his frail grandparents, the glorification of processed confectionary, and the presentation of excessive materialism, won by a random lottery, as a 'solution' to poverty.
I think this version updates the story appropriately, with more mature, modern sensibilities. Gene Wilder called it a cash - grab, but Burton made it his own without a doubt. There's the quirky, idiosyncratic production design and cinematography he does so well, and Elfman's strange score is inventive, yet totally fits. I see why Depp's Wonka is divisive, but he is uniquely human here.
Don't know if I prefer it over the 70's film, but I don't feel it's worse, and it makes a lot of sensible changes where the previous film felt dated (e.g. Removing some musical numbers, and altering the ending).
The Creator (2023)
Wanted something deeper and richer in story and character
Edwards' pragmatic use of a skeleton crew, visual effects, real locations instead of sets, and a small, cheap camera, result in an $80 million film which would normally cost triple that. It's inspirational, but despite the ambition, vivid visuals, and dedication to its lore, the film suffers from:
-A 'robots are people' message recycled from 'Blade Runner', but without a deeper dive into why
-A shallow depiction of A. I. as generic robots, without exploring the technology's unique traits
-Dull characters, including Washington's one - note protagonist
-Loose, underdeveloped plot points reminiscent of other blockbusters, padded with lots of travelling and action. Felt like not much was happening.
Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)
2.5 hour stunt showreel for Tom Cruise
This is probably the most action - heavy and stunt - heavy of all 7 fiilms, and in my mind, one of the weakest. The issue is that the action isn't as motivated by story as it should be. For instance, the HALO jump is just a result of the characters needing to get to a fancy dress party quickly, and not having the time to land the plane. Or, take Tom Cruise running and jumping at full speed across London rooftops, even breaking his ankle, just to catch up to a character who is walking at a leisurely pace on the streets.
A lot of the set pieces come off as excuses to include stunts which Tom Cruise wants to perform. Story - wise, it's many of the same 'Mission' ingredients. Isla is back, and her allegiances are still shifting. Solomon Lane is back, and he's still out to kill innocent people. There's the same twists, the double and triple - crossing, and the endless mask reveals. With all of McQuarrie's 'M:I' films, he crams a ridiculous number of twists ontop of twists into short dialogue scenes and in rapid succession, to the point where you can't follow them all, and they don't feel they have any effect on the overarching story.
The heists were often the highlights of these films, and thankfully, 'M:I - 7' corrected some of the wrongs from 'Fallout' by scaling back on the action and bringing back the heist sequences.
Beware the Slenderman (2016)
Don't expect a Slenderman documentary
Putting aside whether I liked it, it's a fact that this isn't really the film for you if you're here primarily for the whole Slenderman Creepypasta/urban legend.
Instead, it's really about this specific stabbing, the two girls that perpetrated it, and their lives. You hear a lot from their parents. Only a minority of the screen time is dedicated to the internet and Slenderman.
Putting all that aside, I wasn't very entertained and wouldn't reccommend it.
The Expendables 2 (2012)
Better than the first one
Whilst I didn't exactly adore 'The Expendables 2', it did improve upon a lot of what I didn't like about the previous film.
The story is significantly more intriguing, though still very bare bones, and not exactly original. The locations feel much more exotic and unique. A lot of the characters are still not memorable, although at least the team dynamic is stronger here; whilst the first film felt like people kept coming and going, this one mostly keeps them together as a tight unit, giving the supporting characters more screen time and emphasizing their comradery. The direction of the action is also stronger; much more coherent than the first film, with more imagination behind it as well.
Whilst it isn't terribly memorable, it is a decent action flick.
The Expendables (2010)
Completely hollow and overflowing with tired cliches
I sat down, ready to watch a fun and simple action flick. I was disappointed.
The main draw to this film is obviously the cast. There is meant to be a novelty in watching all of these legendary action heroes team up on screen. However, I never really felt like the film pulled this off. For starters, some actors have very little screen time, including Rourke and Willis. Other actors also were very sidelined, and I never felt like the team dynamic was really there. I wasn't convinced at all that the characters had been friends for years, despite the film's pretense of such.
In general, the movie is incredibly cliched, without actually being entertaining. The mission, the heroes, the villains, the romance, all of it. It's very empty.
The action is fine, I guess. It's there. There are some cool shots and moments, but it mostly isn't filmed or edited very well, and just sort of washes over you.
Overall, disappointingly forgettable.
Don't F**k with Cats: Hunting an Internet Killer (2019)
Enjoyable, but I just want to highlight a couple of issues I had (SPOILERS)
1) Firstly, the message from the 'sock puppet' Facebook account telling Baudi Moovan that 'the person you're looking for is Luka Magnotta'. This is a gigantic and crucial part to the story, which was never addressed after its inclusion. It automatically raises all sorts of questions; who sent the message? Why did they send it? How were they involved with Luka, and how did they know about Luka's crimes? Was it Luka himself who sent the message?
I'm unfamiliar with the real story, as many people probably are who will watch the documentary. I felt like the filmmaker should've explored/addressed these questions; even if they don't know the answers, it's still a part of the story that begs these inquiries, and it would simply serve as an entertaining scene/section. It actually would've been a nice way to end the documentary, on an uncertainty; asking who sent this message, why they did it, and whether they are still out there. It would show that the story is not quite over yet; there are still chilling things we do not know, that we might never know. Ending by hinting at another mystery can be very effective.
This is similar to how many are complaining about the 'third hand' in the python video not being explained. From what I've seen, there's a real answer to that mystery which, for some reason, was left out of the series. What I'm getting at is this; if you include something in the series which instantly raises questions, you should either include the answer, and if you don't know, say so.
2) Yes, the whole question about the audience being complicit in the crimes. Whilst I think it's an interesting and important question, I feel like they could've handled it better or devoted more screen time to it. It felt more like the filmmaker was leaning towards the message of 'yes, you are complicit', which I don't think is very fair, especially since the same question of complicity was not asked of the filmmaker, who made this killer more famous and well-known by doing this series. I feel that they should've left the question of complicity more open-ended.
Other than that, I found the series quite engaging.
The Inbetweeners (2008)
Very unique style of unapologetic, crude humour.
Certainly one of the funniest shows I've ever seen; season 3 is probably the best one. The farcical struggles of these common teenagers can be quite hysterical to witness, as things keep going wrong for them. Nevertheless, their problems and wants are quite relatable. The dialogue is very witty and fast-paced, with plenty of great insults and crude jokes constantly being tossed around between these four characters.
I thought it was marred slightly by its repetition. Every episode follows a similar sort of formula; sometimes it can get a bit tiresome watching the characters chasing the same exact things each episode, and always failing horribly, time after time.
Additionally, the writing can be quite contrived. Things happen which are completely implausible actions for the characters to take The script needs them to be idiots, and for things to go wrong, and incorporating this can feel so forced at times.
Some jokes/moments were a bit too gross-out for my liking. In particular, Season 3 Episode 5. Whilst I enjoyed this episode, I felt like they made the characters seem a bit too depraved and selfish. I understand that they are always mocking each other, but some things they do in this episode made me question how they could realistically be friends, or why I should still root for them as protagonists.
Overall, it's uniquely and delightfully crude. I would recommend it.
The Morning Show (2019)
Solid show; rich and thought-provoking, but not sure about the ending.
I enjoyed it overall.
It feels like a lot of thought and care has gone into the craft of it. Performances are very solid across the board. It navigates our current times in a fascinating way, treating the #MeToo movement as complex subject matter. The show provides multiple opinions and perspectives, prompting the audience to consider how they feel about what is on screen. It asks challenging, yet stimulating, questions about truth, honesty, ethics and integrity.
As for things I didn't like, it can feel very overly dramatic at times, and some of the performances could really be toned down. Additionally, it's quite muddy as to what the Steve Carell character actually got up to. In asking such difficult questions about workplace harassment and how to deal with it, I still feel like I don't have a clear picture of what happened, which really throws off my ability to reach a judgement on this character, as it feels like the show is asking me to do. So much of the show rests on this.
Then we have the ending (which I won't spoil). I felt as though the finale went against the broad spectrum of perspectives that had been explored earlier, instead leaning towards very obviously preaching one message. The end was very abrupt; quite rushed, with no falling tension. I felt like I didn't have time to process all that went on. This is a 10-hour long story, with a sprawling network of characters; so much momentum is built up along the 10 episodes, and I felt like slamming on the brakes in the last few minutes of the finale wasn't appropriate. It could've really done with a feature-length final episode, or potentially another episode entirely. Not only would this have evened the pace and allowed plenty of time for things to settle after the climax, but it could also have provided more time to explore the characters' different perspectives about the actions in the finale, making the ending more nuanced and multi-faceted. Instead, they end by delivering a very defined message to the audience, allowing for no 'falling tension'.
Sometimes it feels like the last few episodes were written by a different person/people than the previous episodes, with a slightly jarring change in direction. Still, I liked 'The Morning Show', and would recommend it.
Air Force One (1997)
"Die Hard on a plane"
The above comparison may be used as humorous hyperbole by some, but I wish to use it to explain why I think this film deserves a 5/10.
Let's start with Harrison Ford. There may be an apparent novelty in watching Ford play the President of the United States in an action thriller set on Air Force One, but the appeal ends there. There's nothing at all interesting or unique about his character. 'Die Hard' worked partly because John McClane was more than a one-note protagonist; he was a family man, hoping to reconcile with his wife and be there for his children. He had an arc; not to mention great one-liners and a gleefully pessimistic sense of humour. Ford's character is without any sort of depth, arc, or entertaining dialogue.
I feel similarly about Gary Oldman's villain. He comes across very much like a stereotypical Russian bad guy, leading a group of other Russian men with sub-machine guns. There is practically nothing to distinguish him from other action-thriller antagonists. Going back to 'Die Hard', Hans Gruber was a brilliant and efficient mastermind, played wonderfully by Alan Rickman. His dialogue scenes with McClane juxtaposed an everyday NYPD cop/family man with an intelligent criminal; on the rare occasions when Oldman and Ford share the screen, it feels like you're merely watching one-dimensional characters.
There are a handful of brief moments where the film almost attempts to get the audience to sympathise with Oldman's villain; that his motives may be sensible, or that the heroes and villains may not be as clearly distinguishable as we first thought. However, these passing glimpses are so brief and under-utilised that they feel out of place with the rest of the film, which represents the protagonists and antagonists in a much more simplified, traditional and patriotic manner.
More broadly, the idea of an action thriller involving terrorists and hostages in an enclosed space is nothing new, hence the 'Die Hard' comparison. There's only so many times you can hear "I will kill a hostage every (X) minutes until my demands are met" before you get tired of it. 'Air Force One' suffers partially from adhering to genre cliches.
That being said, the film isn't entirely without merit. The political aspect of the storyline is quite interesting, and characters have to be asking all sorts of difficult moral questions about how to resolve their situation to cause the least amount of harm, weighing up lives and consequences. These questions constantly change as the film continues; characters must adapt to the circumstances as power balances shift between heroes and villain. The film may have benefited slightly by including more of this. In addition, setting the action on the President's plane is one of the film's more unique decisions, and makes for some interesting situations and efficient tension.
Overall, 'Air Force One' is a watchable action-thriller with a unique setting; it passes the time, but ultimately came across as rather forgettable to me.
The Incredible Hulk (2008)
Disposable entertainment
Nothing unique or different to see here, but still enjoyable.
Edward Norton's iteration of the character is really the heart of the film. His portrayal of a determined and gentle individual, who simply wishes to put a stop to his condition, is easy to sympathise with. His relationship with Liv Tyler's character is also very sweet; there is an interesting dichotomy in Hulk's furious rage being motivated out of wanting to protect the woman he loves.
I didn't care much for the villains portrayed by William Hurt and Tim Roth, and I found that the film often dragged during their scenes. There are three large action sequences, the first and last of which I thought were generic and uninteresting, but the other one I liked.
In my opinion, a slightly underrated instalment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Knives Out (2019)
From someone who was underwhelmed with The Last Jedi
I found Rian Johnson's Star Wars film to be disappointing, but I believe in going into every movie with an open mind, and I really enjoyed 'Knives Out'.
It's an intricate mystery story that feels clever, witty, and made with a lot of passion and care. An early twist in the plot puts this film on another level, distinguishing it from other murder mysteries and making it a unique experience. The characters are very distinctive, and the brisk pace means that the 130 minute runtime is never boring. The theme of self-made success is also beautifully explored.
I found the ending to be slightly rushed, but overall, the film comes across as funny, smart, and unpredictable, all at the same time. Would certainly recommend giving it a watch.
American Crime Story (2016)
Compelling stories, stunningly realised on screen
Enjoyed both seasons very much, the first slightly more so.
'People vs. O.J. Simpson' benefits from its fascinating true story, filled with twists, turns, unpredictability and suspense. The scope is sprawling, exploring many interesting characters, as well as America's reaction to the trial. The racial issues are excellently navigated, encouraging the viewer to think for themselves. The show never feels like it is pushing a political message. Overall, a very well made and highly engaging season of television.
The second season is also very enjoyable, though not quite as much as the first season. 'Assassination of Gianni Versace' is a misleading title; the series focuses on Versace's killer, Andrew Cunanan, exploring his killing spree, and the events leading up to it. Homophobia is the issue explored here, and once again, very powerfully. This season feels slightly narrower in scope, focusing mainly on one character, to some detriment.
Still, the writing, directing and acting in both seasons is fantastic. The show always feels very authentic to its time period, yet never dated; it is complex and dramatic in a modern way. One of the better television programs I've ever seen.
American History X (1998)
Tedious and drawn out, with underdeveloped character arcs
Yes, Edward Norton is great, and the cinematography is interesting. Yes, there are some highly effective and powerful moments. But ultimately, I wasn't entertained by this film.
The story heavily involves Norton's character, a former white supremacist. I was utterly unconvinced by the reasons the film gave as to why he changed his ways. I never found myself believing that someone so adamantly spiteful and prejudiced could so easily reverse all of his attitudes, and change his outlook on life. Not to say that such isn't possible, but I didn't think the film was convincing enough.
I felt like a lot of screen time was wasted. So many scenes came across as unnecessarily long; when the story tries to make a point or convey something, it spends more time than it needs to.
I would've loved to have enjoyed it as much as others, but I ultimately came off underwhelmed.
Now You See Me (2013)
Messy, bloated, implausible and perfectly entertaining
It's light, fun, slick and fast. At times, it does feel like there is too much going on, and it's a bit hard to follow. Additionally, there are several implausibilities, including a silly final twist. However, I really did enjoy myself.
Unknown (2011)
Efficient thriller with some interesting twists
A perfectly competent and enjoyable mystery/action/thriller film. Towards the beginning, Neeson's character feels rather uninteresting and bare, and the film comes across as a bit thin. However, the central mystery is engaging enough to pull you through the runtime, and I started to get more invested as the movie went on.
The plot twists not only make sense, but take the story in more interesting and unexpected directions. While I'm not terribly inclined to rewatch it, Unknown is a perfectly efficient and entertaining thriller that passes the time well.
World War Z (2013)
Messy, but not irredeemable
The film starts off very messily, with underdeveloped characters and an incoherent edit. It feels as though so many scenes and characters have been cut down drastically, and pieces are missing. However, World War Z improves in its last half (and especially last third). The re-shot ending feels much more coherent, complete, and interesting.
Overall, while the film is very undeveloped and disjointed at times, there are some great set pieces and moments, and the ending is strong.
The Rover (2014)
A lot to admire, except for the story
Very mixed bag, in my opinion.
Performances: Excellent. Guy Pearce is riveting, tragic and incredibly nuanced. Robert Pattinson is fully convincing and immersed; you never feel like you are watching an actor.
Directing: Also excellent. You can tell that you're witnessing a carefully crafted work from someone who is truly passionate and visionary. David Michod proves his vast talents.
Story: Here is where there are problems. The realistic, desolate apocalyptic setting is intriguing, as is Guy Pearce's character. However, it never feels like much happens in the film. It's a slow burn, and the ending disappointed me slightly. I found myself wondering what the point of the entire thing was; a lot of screen time felt wasted.
Overall, some very impressive things here, but a script that feels overlong. I would still recommend it, though.
No Escape (2015)
Not awful, not great either
Unfortunately, it falls a bit flat. No Escape is a relentless action thriller, and thankfully, it doesn't take too long to get to the action. However, a lot of it is stuff that you've seen endlessly in countless other films. After a while, watching the characters going from one life-threatening situation to another feels slightly numbing.
The characters themselves aren't all that engaging. I love Pierce Brosnan and he is certainly a high point of the film, but he has barely any screen time. Overall, it could've been much worse, but ultimately I found the film disappointing.