Reviews

Having heard all the mixed or negative reviews almost made me skip this movie in cinema. It didnt help that I didnt like George Miller's last movie (One Thousand Years of Longing). But I'm glad that I gave him the benefit of the doubt and watched it on IMAX. Great sound design, great action and awesome chase scenes being delivered by Miller and company. The approach to the story is different, the structure is different, the topic is different, so comparing it to Fury Road is futile because both movies feel very different at it's core. The questions I ask myself are: Was it unpredictable? Was it an exciting journey? Did I care about the characters? And if the answer to all those questions is a resounding Yes! Well, then the movie delivered. Like I said I liked both films although Fury Road will always have an edge just for the simple fact that it blew so many minds with it's relentless high adrenaline tone. Also Fury Road was a little bit better paced and I like that it's an ensemble film. Furiosa has a lot more ground to cover story wise, it's understandable that it runs a bit longer. But I have to admit that there is something slightly off about the last act which felt unnecessarliy rushed. Certain scenes were too indulgent, took too much screen time while others wrapped up too fast, or not at all. Like the character of Scrotus for example. I was hoping he had a bigger role to play. Immortan Joe had the right amount of screen time, especially since he will be more prominent in the next movie. Scrotus on the other hand is not present in Fury Road, so it seems like his fate in the 2015 video-game is canon, which I found a little bit disappointing.

Yet still there is a lot to like in this movie. For one, there's more variety in the car chases. More 1-on-1 battles which I personally find more exciting. Sure there has to be a War Rig sequence and that one's great in it's own right. The CG didn't bother me as much as I feared. The trailer really did a huge disservice to the movie. The music didn't go for melody like In Fury Road but instead went for atmospheric tones and vibes. This also felt more reminiscent to the older Mad Max movies and therefore perfectly bridges the tone of the older films with the style of the newer MM movies. Probably the only prequel that I know of, that isn't just a shameless money grab.

I understand why this gets so many negative reviews. Given that this is depicting one of the most if not THE most iconic actress of 50's Hollywood. People were not happy about the creative liberty that was taken here. But then again most people in the US probably knew that this is based on a famous novel that stressed out it's fictional roots.

I wasn't aware that this was loosely based on said fictionalized novel but it didn't bother me that much, since this isn't a historic movie nor is it trying to be a documentary. This borders on the realm of surreal cinema à la Lynch or Fellini. There are many visual signifiers that we are watching a dream/nightmare come true. Especially the transitions show the meaningless of time and space. The story of Norma Jean in this movie is sadly the story of many. Many who never made it into stardom and were chewed out by the system. But it's almost a horror movie in regard how the big institutions, the movie industry, the media or government are fundamentally corroded and only know how to feed their endless hunger. I think especially when it comes to cinematography Andrew Dominik has a good eye, and for the first time I have finally seen a good-looking Netflix movie that doesn't look like digital garbage. Of course there are things that I didn't like, namely the loose structure can be a curse as well. Especially when it comes to the end of of certain events or relationships, the film sometimes doesn't even care to wrap up certain threads. This can admittedly become tedious after a while. There is also a great amount of unnecessary nudity towards the end, and a sexual encounter with a president which is horrific but the way it is depicted borders almost on comedy. It's moments like this where the movie just tries too hard to hit you over the head. It is still an interesting film, I never felt the long running time and Ana de Armas does a really good performance. And for a digital shot film (with Netflix' visual stipulations and guidelines), it looks pretty good. Not for everyone, but people with an open mind or an open eye should take a look.

One of the best attributes about A Hard Day is it's break-neck pacing. Say what you want, but there wasn't a minute I was bored with this film. Right away from the first few minutes it plunges the viewer into an inciting incident. Relentlessly moving from one fallout to the next. That alone is quite an accomplishment in my opinion. One downside to this fast-paced storytelling is that certain important moments feel glossed over in the middle of the action. Especially that the protagonist doesn't share a strong bond with anybody, seemingly not even his own daughter. I don't know if it was by design, but it created a certain distance for me. To get back to the story, it has a good hook and a mid-point twist that keeps things moving forward at all time. Spoilers ahead:

With the reveal of the villain at mid-point we get introduced to one of the craziest whacko characters I have ever seen in a Korean film. Cho Jin-woong is really firing on all cylinders: he is impulsive, almost suicidal. He is an extreme version of our hero, superior in most areas too in terms of job status, intelligence and physical prowess. Every time he appears on screen he is a force to behold, he keeps our detective on his toes. He's a great villain, the kind that is a real threat. You don't see that kind of character very often anymore. The movie balances things out with some dark comedic moments throughout. It is unapologetic in that regard, which is another strong point.

It is a highly entertaining film. The only thing it falls short from is that it misses out on depth or profound characters. I know it's a nitpick but since most Korean films always go that little extra mile to make a movie special, it feels something is missing here. In any case I would recommend watching it, especially people who like suspense and a movie that keeps the audience engaged at all times. You can't go wrong .

7 out of 10.

The 90's were a strange time, with a wide array of genre films. Looking back now, it almost seems as if exploitation movies had a second renaissance during that time. Thanks to the success of Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs, it let loose an avalanche of hyper stylized violent movies like Natural Born Killers, Killing Zoe, Doberman etc.. To be honest I like the risks that were taken back in the day, even if the majority of those films turned out to be serviceable. Having heard so many times about this movie in the past from many people I didn't expect this to be a dud, but unfortunately it was.

Perdita Durango is a sleazy exploitation flick with zero substance. Which would be fine if it was at least interesting. It's as if the studio got the picture greenlighted and they had to come up with a story in one week, there's a little bit of symbolism sprinkled here and there but overall there is no point to it. And that starts with the title, you'd think a movie called Perdita Durango would be mainly about the titular character. Instead it focuses on Javier Bardem's Romeo character the minute he walks into the picture. You can't blame the director, Bardem has an eclectic presence compared to the pale performance of Perez. But honestly nothing much happens with his character either: the couple kidnaps two teenagers, do questionable things with them and share their criminal wisdom, things go sideways as always in those kind of scenarios and that's pretty much it. Underwhelming was the feeling I had when the credit rolled. What soured me though is when I found out that this movie was 'inspired' by real events about a religious psychopath who tortured, sacrificed and buried dozens of people but once they snatched a white guy from the US border the authorities finally decided to maybe do something about those shenanigans. As you can tell, there is an interesting story here which could even work as a satire. But it's baffling that the producers of this film decided to go a total different route: namely in making the religious mass murderer likeable and do a fun road movie. This fits perfectly with other misguided Hollywood productions that took an appalling true crime and turn it into fast food entertainment like Michael Bay's 'Pain &Gain' or '30 Minutes or Less'. For an exploitation film it is too tame and for a drama it offers no one to care about. In short: not worth your time.

3 out of 10.

One trouble this documentary has (although not it's fault), is that it has to work with really bad interviewees who are often grandstanding, almost performing when being interviewed. It feels like they are clearly enjoying being interviewed and it rubs me the wrong way, given the topic. I'm surprised so little actual victims get a voice here. Apart from that the documentary does a well enough job to show the chronological nature of the events. Sadly there are certain moments where I wished it would focus a little more and others a little less (Obama). For example the family of the bombers acted very peculiar and although it is only hinted at, I think the father played a bigger role why the sons felt so unhappy that they not only embraced an extremist movement but acted on it.

Some reviewers stated that the investigative journalist Phillip Martin had an agenda and went too hard on the police. But I think the documentary understated how many crucial mistakes the police force did. And how they came off as cowboys who finally had their John Wayne moment. The documentary doesn't show them having level-headed responses to certain situations, especially the mexican standoff part gets brushed off. The worst in that regard is the FBI, represented by Rick Deslauriers, who talks and acts like a clueless buffoon in a Peter Sellers film. At least they interviewed guys like David Filipov who has probably one of the most interesting and thoughtful takes on this complicated matter. Like so many documentaries on Netflix, it's the aftermath part where it falls apart in rushing through the events like it's an ending coda. There's nothing about the impact on the police force this attack had. Were there repercussions? Did new laws get passed? Was anything learned from this chain of failures? A country that prides itself on spending billions on 'security' and depriving the whole nation of it's democratic rights, and in the end two teenagers can turn the whole country upside down. That would've been interesting question to cover and put some of the people here on the spot.

I have watched this movie twice now in cinema, in two different languages, but I wanted to at least watch the original version to see if something got lost in translation. On the first watch I had mixed feelings, because there's honestly a lot to process with the neat visuals, bizarre otherworld and the absurdist tone/conversations. On second watch I liked it a bit less, because the film feels like it drops the ball somewhere at the midpoint of the movie. The only thing that kept things fresh was honestly the buffoonery of one of the villains played by Ruffalo. The protagonist wanders around and states very obvious things throughout the film and it becomes quite simplistic, like the story getting the reverse evolution treatment of Bella. The nudity and sexual scenes didn't bother me too much, although it definitely feels like overkill on second re-watch, and I spoken to other people who watched it and claim that it's intentionally being dull or repetitive because of 'patriarchy'. I have no problem with a movie being disturbing, just boring and repetitive are qualities that are hard to be enthusiastic about. Like I said the movie loses a lot of steam halfway through the boat trip. Especially whenever the movie is getting interesting like introducing the class system (rich vs poor) it does literally nothing with it, seeing that it is intrinsically linked with the exploitation of women, children, humans in general. It never goes more into the complexities, complications or Tha accomplice of our society. There's also no struggle in Bella's journey to attain certain knowledge, she feels sorry for the poor slum people but throws money at the problem and then completely forgets about it. She's not very smart in one scene but psychoanalyzes the cynical traveler to a T during their farewell. She's poor but immediately gets a job as a prostitute. And the depiction of the whorehouse being a jolly fun place I found especially problematic. For example, there is not one instance of violence, the worst costumer she gets, is a guy who smells funny. If you watch interviews with prostitutes and they talk about the environment, it is without a question a very harsh one. The movie always shies away from the real nasty stuff of life, and violence is definitely a prominent tool for exploitation. We get a brief glimpse of it during the appearance of her real husband, but again this issue gets solved fairly easy, it's such a mild inconvenience, I wonder why it was included at all.

Another problem I had, is the fiancé/medical assistant who has no backbone, no agency, he is such a fluff character willing to read every wish to Bella's demands, that I wonder what it is she likes about him. If one would reverse the gender of this dynamic you'd get a very different picture. It's not a bad movie, I quite enjoyed it although it's meandering to get through the finish line. I liked the saturated colorful cinematography, Ruffalo's sleazebag performance, the intrinsic set design and especially the music. I wish the movie had a little bit more to say or we would get a more interesting and challenging encounters towards the end.

I have watched this in cinema, but apart from one or two image I completely forgotten what it was about or how it ended. I just rewatched it, and it makes sense why I have blocked it out of my memory, although I mostly enjoyed the set pieces up to a point. This movie starts very intriguing with lots of questions and shady characters. I also liked the lighting and camera work of the first half of the movie, the only downside is that the set looks a bit artificial in it's pristine state, since everything looks brand-new. We don't feel like the characters are stranded in the middle of nowhere since we only see the hotel and it's parking area, but nothing outside of that perimeter, it would helped to see a little bit more of the area. If it was surrounded by a huge desert area. I would have accepted more why characters don't leave this forsaken place when their life is in danger, regardless if their car doesn't start.

But those are just nitpicks to be honest. The real problem with the movie is that it has nothing really interesting to tell halfway through the film. Especially the inclusion of the cult hippie family deflates the movie from anything remotely interesting. You can tell Chris Hemsworth had fun playing that character, but it is also very, very one-dimensional on page, which culminates in him being shut down by the protagonist in the most preachy way possible. I don't buy it for a second that this self-delusional lunatic would just sit there speechless, it felt very written. A lot of it does on the last stretch. The war veteran reveal felt like this whole thing is a convenient joke. It is simply astounding how hard the movie dropped the ball after such a promising beginning. Don't get me wrong, I was rooting for the two characters to survive but it had to be earned. This move gets compared to Tarantino a lot, and although I'm not his biggest fan, at least in his movies the characters have to go through the wringer in the last act. The other reason this gets compared to Tarantino is probably it's structure. Although he certainly didn't invent the out of order storytelling, he helped popularize it, bringing it into mainstream cinema. The flashback segments on this film are interesting armt first. But the more Goddard uses it the more they overstay their welcome. I remember even in the cinema that the constant breaks in the main narrative got really tedious. And the difference between the segments in Pulp Fiction versus this movie is that they have a clear beginning, turning point and a resolution. Most segments here end with a cliffhanger or a question mark and that is what makes it more frustrating than rewarding.

Overall this movie played it too safe, and was too on the nose with the male toxicity. All the talk about religion is nothing more than lip service. I get that every character in this movie believes in their own god like christianity, government (FBI), money, Manson and music. But at the end the characters still take the blood money, so I guess that is good. Bad Times is unfortunately an empty movie since there is nothing deeply profound about any of the observations and as an entertainment flick this movie just gets lost in it's long-winded narrative. At least Cabin in the Woods was fun towards the end.

Tried to like this film, but I it was a little bit too messy. The overall story felt a bit too cliché. There were also a couple of things that I found deeply problematic, but more on that later. First the good things, visually this movie is very impressive, I liked the art style: be it the 'concept art' look of the backgrounds or the 2d effects. I also believe it's a fresh angle to have the Turtles actually be teenagers. Unfortunately they don't do much with that concept, because if you're honest you could have told the same story of acceptance with grown up characters. Splinter being the over-protective Dad is such a tired trope in animation, I rather preferred him to be a wise man with faults. At least that would have saved us some lame rat jokes. And here comes the big reason, why this didn't work for me: the jokes. They are so wannabe hip with the dated pop references, and by the way I seriously doubt that a male teenager is gonna fawn over Adele. There were too many of those cringe moments where they are trying too hard to be meta or in on the joke. I wish this kind of humor would end, it's the lowest form of writing. Coupled with a pace that is too brazen (because of joke overload), there is barely any room for contemplation. Similar like the Lego movie (and to an extent the Spiderverse) the fast cuts during action scenes left me more often wondering what just happened rather than being wowed by intrinsic choreography. Ironically they showed clips of old Wuxia films on TV, they maybe should have studied those films on how to stage action properly with fluidity.

It also doesn't help that the movie has nothing interesting to tell - the coming of age themes in particular feel half-baked. Leonardo is in love, that's about it. As a matter of fact I always felt like seeing a hodge podge of other animated movies and films. Whole beats like the citizens helping the Turtles with cranes is lifted straight out of the Amazing Spiderman (2012) movie. Others like the end fight reminded me of The Incredibles, (especially the themes about acceptance and hiding your true self). But whereas the Incredibles has clear goals and doesn't pepper in jokes at every corner, this showdown felt very convoluted. Not nearly half as much engaging, especially when the Turtles even joke while they're about to get crushed by the villain, it's just dumb.

Problematic is the message of the movie: the Turtles get accepted only AFTER they save the world. Would have been nice to see that beat play out in the middle of the story and they aren't welcomed at school like now where they arrive as pop stars. The overall message seems so shallow, but it makes sense with the way the movie reminded me of an overlong TikTok clip. I also found it problematic introducing our young 'heroes' in a theft montage without any remorse or questioning those acts. It's really weird how tone deaf some moments feel. Almost like a supervillain who wants kill all humans to avenge his Dad, who was a Human, mind you. I respect the attempt to try something new with this franchise, but they could have used better writers before they plunge hundreds of artists to give their sweat and blood for a half-baked movie.

This movie gets two of the most important things in filmmaking right: 'the writing' and Thomas Jane.

It's been a long time I have listened to such smooth dialogue which doesn't have to rely on exaggeration or over-the-top-ness (like a Tarantino flick). And out of all cop movies I watched (Brooklyn's Finest, Training Day, Dark Blue etc) this felt actually quite real and not too Hollywood. The cinematography is also very restrained and helps the authentic tone. Like someone else mentioned, this feels like watching a whole season of a series. After the shift is over you feel almost as exhausted as the the two cops making it out alive for another day. A movie or book that can put you in the shoes of someone else is the highest praise you can give, and this movie did exactly that. Thanks to an outstanding performance by Thomas Jane who embodies the old rugged cop like no other. The movie is a deep dive into the heart of darkness and some people get swallowed whole by this world.

AI is such a rich topic, it can be explored from any kind of angles but this movie decided to use it only as a prop. The AI people are just stand-ins for oppressed people X. None of the AI people are really intelligent, they behave as regular humans and even have to sleep (?!), which is one of many advantages machines would have over humans. The movie decides to tell a generic story that we have seen many times before, and in a better way.

If one ignores the paper thin story and has to describe this movie in one word, it would be messy. Awkward change of tones, a weird plot structure with constant flashbacks, unclear action, an unlikeable protagonist that gets everyone killed and even the acting is all over the place.

Similar like Neil Blomkamp, the director is more interested in world-building than in gripping storytelling. All the story beats are there, all of them predictable. Every interesting sci-fi idea is discarded in favor of a trope. You got robots who are all portrayed as inherently good (and who never malfunction) and the humans who are either evil military or grateful victims who adore their robot saviors. There are no grey areas, no ambivalent characters or ideas at play. This predictive setup reminded me a lot of the AVATAR movies. Not only do you have a protagonist who infiltrates 'the resistance' and switches sides, you got the army villain who is almost identical in behaviour and personality.

The connective tissue is supposed to be the relationship between the two protagonists. If you expect them bonding slowly over the course of the 135min runtime, you should lower your expectations. Instead we get a montage in the beginning of their journey and that's pretty much all the development you'll see in that department. It's almost like the writing was a necessary evil to get from one action set piece to another.

Talking about action, it is the most lifeless I have seen in a blockbuster (since the Transformers films). If the bad guys or our good guys get into a car, they get the biggest plot armour. Cars can get shot at by hundred guns or overturn a million times, they will get out of it unharmed and unphazed, even if they didn't use a seat belt. At one point it is super easy to destroy a giant tank with a small sticky charge, but once successfully applied, no one else will be using this tactic again. The Asian country where the story takes place doesn't have military or a defense budget, because they only have useless police cars/robots at their disposal whose sole purpose is to get blown up. And can we talk about explosions and how the director doesn't know how they work. Almost everyone who gets blown up by an explosion will look pretty with some bruises on their cheek, especially the women. There's also a thing called shockwave or blast radius which are the very things that will end your life. Our protagonist gets to witness three of them in point blank range. You have a person with a superpower to switch off all electronic devices, even a whole neighborhood and military checkpoint if the script wants to, but when it comes to a satellite those superpowers will only be used for a door. Almost every action scene ends with a coincidence, deus ex machina or that someone draws a gun faster than the other. The last action set piece in particular is redundant where they send a robot after someone who can turn off electric devices. Next time maybe send a monkey with a club to do the job. Mostly you'll see a hundred laser beams flying around without hitting anything or anyone. Again the action is so uninteresting that you never feel that our heroes are in danger, unless it's a side character, well then RIP, those have zero chance of survival. And why should they? They fulfilled their task of convenient exposition talk so let's just kill them to create artificial stakes. Those parts felt so nihilistic to me and more often than not sabotaged the message of the movie. The flashbacks are another thing that tell you nothing interesting. Unfortunately they are sprinkled throughout the film to make us artificially care about the protagonist. And that's what this movie is in a nutshell, a story written by an AI with some nice visual ideas but completely devoid of a soul. And I was rooting for the movie, it is no remake, has good cinematography and has good world building (only aesthetically though) but it just felt so derivative and un-engaging on an emotional level. It's a shame.