This film is really beautiful to look at. It's almost two different films, one about obsession and one about psychopathy. The first film is interesting, subtle and has a relatable depth. The second is about psychopathy. Guess which film was more nuanced and thoughtful? Guess which film was silly and a stupid betrayal of the former film? The contrast is weird and jarring. But, even though this is the case, I still wasn't bored, I had to watch it to the silly end. And it got sillier and sillier until the last scene culminates in a naked man dancing around a mansion shaking his bits and bum, reveling in the the fact that he killed a rich family and now owns their property. Don't get me wrong though, Barry Keoghan has a great body so I was still entertained. I was just dissapointed with what could have been. This could have been a brilliant film.
Reviews
36 Reviews
Return to Seoul
(2022)
Who you are is not to be found in the world of things
13 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
My immediate mood after seeing this film was utter depression and desolation. Emptiness. I mean really. This film gives you nothing. It takes away, until you're left with nothing. Nothing except a plaintive, solitary piano line. There is no happy ending, it dangles a happy ending out there in front of you and then mercilessly snatches it away, again and again. There is no resolution for the film's character. There is no reprieve. The lesson seems absent, until you realise that that is the lesson. Identity is a dead end. Happiness cannot be found there. Culture means nothing. Culture is meaningless. You have yourself. That's all you have. This film is a harsh teacher. But that's the lesson, that's the truth.
The main character is not obviously likable. She is emotionally damaged. She feels neglected and expresses this through self-destruction and nihilistic hedonism. She does not know where her identity lies. She feels abandoned by her Korean family but does not want to admit that it matters to her. Even when she does admit it, she (perhaps) realises that it makes no difference. Whether she thinks she is Korean or French or both, whether her Korean biological parents accept or care for her or not, she is still left with the existential predicament that haunts us all. We still are left with only ourselves. A sense of belonging to a cultural or ethnic identity will not change that. Identity and family are not where freedom lies. Freedom lies in small moments.
If you suffer from suicidal ideation relating to a sense of not being cared for by your family I would urge caution in watching this film. Or perhaps, if you are at the right point, it will set you free.
The main character is not obviously likable. She is emotionally damaged. She feels neglected and expresses this through self-destruction and nihilistic hedonism. She does not know where her identity lies. She feels abandoned by her Korean family but does not want to admit that it matters to her. Even when she does admit it, she (perhaps) realises that it makes no difference. Whether she thinks she is Korean or French or both, whether her Korean biological parents accept or care for her or not, she is still left with the existential predicament that haunts us all. We still are left with only ourselves. A sense of belonging to a cultural or ethnic identity will not change that. Identity and family are not where freedom lies. Freedom lies in small moments.
If you suffer from suicidal ideation relating to a sense of not being cared for by your family I would urge caution in watching this film. Or perhaps, if you are at the right point, it will set you free.
The Empty Man
(2020)
Jacques Derrida High!!
16 February 2023
The introductory scene is great and promises something that the rest of the film can't deliver. This film is very confused and worse still, knows it but tries to pretend otherwise. It tries to blind you with philosophical and spiritual ideas of nothingness a la Buddhism and Post Modernism. It jumbles philosophical emptiness (nihilism) together with Buddhist emptiness which are two different things entirely.
This film wants to pretend to be a social commentary on the nihilism of postmodernism through the medium of supernatural horror. It's a strange mishmash but its so audacious and unique that it piqued my interest, although as the film went on, I became more and more disappointing and saw it for what it was: Empty as flip! Empty in the very nihilistic sense that it sets out to lamely critique.
As an unsettling horror film it actually sometimes works and the visuals are occasionally compelling and sometimes unique. Just such a pity that the concept and story couldn't have been more coherent which takes away from the film greatly.
This film wants to pretend to be a social commentary on the nihilism of postmodernism through the medium of supernatural horror. It's a strange mishmash but its so audacious and unique that it piqued my interest, although as the film went on, I became more and more disappointing and saw it for what it was: Empty as flip! Empty in the very nihilistic sense that it sets out to lamely critique.
As an unsettling horror film it actually sometimes works and the visuals are occasionally compelling and sometimes unique. Just such a pity that the concept and story couldn't have been more coherent which takes away from the film greatly.
The Whale
(2022)
An exploration of addiction and homosexuality.
11 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
A film about addiction, the causes of which are: loss of or a lack of connection to others. I can't disagree with that assessment.
I wasn't quite convinced by the character of Charlie. He seemed like such a grotesque figure of pity to the point of caricature. What I did like about the film is that it tackled the subject of gay men and the churches attempt to call their love 'sins of the flesh'. That somehow being gay is some kind of sinful addiction akin to food or drugs. The film seems to float this as a possible interpretation but thankfully clearly and unequivocally denounces such an interpretation to the point where it is wholly in favour of same sex attracted love.
The acting was great across the board. Strangely I thought Brendan Fraser had the least best performance of anyone. Sadie Sink, Samantha Morton but especially Hong Chau are brilliant. Brendan Fraser's performance is good but nothing to write home about. Is he being praised more for his physical acting? Perhaps I need to watch the film again to full appreciate it.
The actually watching of the film itself is slightly uncomfortable and not overly enjoyable. It was afterwards when I thought a bit more about that film that I felt I appreciated it more. Charlie's character is a bit manipulative and unsubtle as a symbol of addiction but Aronofsky gets his point across. As a man of ideas and symbols Aronofsky can't be beaten, but I'm not sure I could believe in Charlie as a character.
I wasn't quite convinced by the character of Charlie. He seemed like such a grotesque figure of pity to the point of caricature. What I did like about the film is that it tackled the subject of gay men and the churches attempt to call their love 'sins of the flesh'. That somehow being gay is some kind of sinful addiction akin to food or drugs. The film seems to float this as a possible interpretation but thankfully clearly and unequivocally denounces such an interpretation to the point where it is wholly in favour of same sex attracted love.
The acting was great across the board. Strangely I thought Brendan Fraser had the least best performance of anyone. Sadie Sink, Samantha Morton but especially Hong Chau are brilliant. Brendan Fraser's performance is good but nothing to write home about. Is he being praised more for his physical acting? Perhaps I need to watch the film again to full appreciate it.
The actually watching of the film itself is slightly uncomfortable and not overly enjoyable. It was afterwards when I thought a bit more about that film that I felt I appreciated it more. Charlie's character is a bit manipulative and unsubtle as a symbol of addiction but Aronofsky gets his point across. As a man of ideas and symbols Aronofsky can't be beaten, but I'm not sure I could believe in Charlie as a character.
Enys Men
(2022)
Sub par Lynch?
28 January 2023
I enjoyed Bait, Jenkins' previous film so I had an idea of his odd dated style. Bait had a much more conventional narrative whereas Enys men is very layered, rhythmic and dream-like. Things like linear time and space are almost blurred occasionally. This film is highly symbolic in an almost Lynchian sense. It's unsettling in a psychological way and not in a traditional horror sense. The horror is from everyday tragedy and the haunted memories this creates.
The film is unfortunately rather boring because of the highly repetitive nature of the same person doing the same boring routine day after day. What this film lacks is stylishness and modernity. Jenkins seems obsessed with the ordinary and mundane. There are several close-ups of seagulls flying, waves crashing, woman making tea, reading a book, over and over again..... But if all you show in your films in the ordinary mundanity of life then your films will be feel that way to the viewer. Slowly more unsettling/bizarre elements are fragmented into this bland everyday existence but it doesn't break up the dull pacing.
At least after the end of the film me and my friend felt compelled to question what it all had meant. What was the point of this symbolic image or that one.
The main theme seems to be about complex unresolved grief. Grief that haunts us over and over. Survivor's guilt - what we should have done to save the person but didn't do. However, there is something more complicated than one person's grief being explored here. There is a whole Island's worth of historical grief but it is unclear how that relates to the main character in the film.
I couldn't say I would recommend this film. Maybe someone more familiar with the type of grief it was exploring would get something more out of it.
The film is unfortunately rather boring because of the highly repetitive nature of the same person doing the same boring routine day after day. What this film lacks is stylishness and modernity. Jenkins seems obsessed with the ordinary and mundane. There are several close-ups of seagulls flying, waves crashing, woman making tea, reading a book, over and over again..... But if all you show in your films in the ordinary mundanity of life then your films will be feel that way to the viewer. Slowly more unsettling/bizarre elements are fragmented into this bland everyday existence but it doesn't break up the dull pacing.
At least after the end of the film me and my friend felt compelled to question what it all had meant. What was the point of this symbolic image or that one.
The main theme seems to be about complex unresolved grief. Grief that haunts us over and over. Survivor's guilt - what we should have done to save the person but didn't do. However, there is something more complicated than one person's grief being explored here. There is a whole Island's worth of historical grief but it is unclear how that relates to the main character in the film.
I couldn't say I would recommend this film. Maybe someone more familiar with the type of grief it was exploring would get something more out of it.
Tár
(2022)
Challenging viewing in more ways than one
15 January 2023
Warning: Spoilers
This is not an easy film to watch and as it progresses the harder it becomes. The protagonist Lydia Tar is somewhat unpleasant but complex. Is she really a bad person who deserves her downfall? It really really isn't clear. The film is incredibly subtle about blame and gives no easy answers. It forces the viewer to make up their own mind. That might frustrate. It did me. It forced me to think about the film, which is one of the greatest things a work of art can do.
Others have mentioned the paranoia that creeps into the character's world and you do start to wonder if she is starting to really lose her mind, a la Black Swan. Which she kind of does in an abrupt, and somewhat unbelievable, manner. There is something desolate, depressing and nihilistic about the character of Tar, but it is so carefully curated by her that blink and you could miss it. The promise of power, and the thrall of power keeps everyone's lips and eyes tightly shut to her manipulations. 'Victims' then become complicit in their own downfall. Everyone plays the game in order to win something.
Tar is brilliant at what she does. Is she an abuser? I would say no. Is she an abuser of her own power? Yes to an extent, however (maybe??) not in an overt way. Are the victims somewhat complicit? Yes, it would seem so. So, really, no easy answers here. But the public court opinion will have its way, fairly or unfairly.
It's a beautiful film shot in beautiful locations and beautiful rooms. Blanchett is good but somehow I expected to be more wowed by her performance. Occasionally you could see her acting, rather than truly inhabiting the character. I think she did a much better job in Blue Jasmine. I enjoyed the dialogue even though it was fast paced and often flew over my head. It didn't bother me one bit. The Classical music references seemed authentic and the political intrigue and structures of the classical world too.
I would recommend this film but not to everyone. It's a difficult film to like because the protagonist is a difficult person to like and the film expects you to do the work yourself. Which is no bad thing really.
Others have mentioned the paranoia that creeps into the character's world and you do start to wonder if she is starting to really lose her mind, a la Black Swan. Which she kind of does in an abrupt, and somewhat unbelievable, manner. There is something desolate, depressing and nihilistic about the character of Tar, but it is so carefully curated by her that blink and you could miss it. The promise of power, and the thrall of power keeps everyone's lips and eyes tightly shut to her manipulations. 'Victims' then become complicit in their own downfall. Everyone plays the game in order to win something.
Tar is brilliant at what she does. Is she an abuser? I would say no. Is she an abuser of her own power? Yes to an extent, however (maybe??) not in an overt way. Are the victims somewhat complicit? Yes, it would seem so. So, really, no easy answers here. But the public court opinion will have its way, fairly or unfairly.
It's a beautiful film shot in beautiful locations and beautiful rooms. Blanchett is good but somehow I expected to be more wowed by her performance. Occasionally you could see her acting, rather than truly inhabiting the character. I think she did a much better job in Blue Jasmine. I enjoyed the dialogue even though it was fast paced and often flew over my head. It didn't bother me one bit. The Classical music references seemed authentic and the political intrigue and structures of the classical world too.
I would recommend this film but not to everyone. It's a difficult film to like because the protagonist is a difficult person to like and the film expects you to do the work yourself. Which is no bad thing really.
X-Men: Dark Phoenix
(2019)
Contemptuously ignores Canon
16 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I give this a 6 because as a standalone film it actually holds your attention and the action is mostly exciting. There does however seem to be a lot of glaringly stupid plot points especially during the action scenes. Since when was the X-wing space worthy? How did the space ship stop spinning so quickly after the thruster was destroyed? This is scientifically impossible given the vacuum of space. How can Storm's power work in the vaccuum of space? Since when can X-men characters seemingly breath in space? During the scene outside the Manhattan mansion why did Magneto use all that time and energy to lift a tube-car out from the ground?? Purely to make a dramatic entrance it seems.
The music is great throughout the film. It set the tone in a really menacing and dramatic way which reflected the overall sense of dread and danger from the Dark Phoenix.
However, for anyone who has seen any of the other films in the series there are several glaring continuity problems with this film. Firstly, Mystique dies. And yet Mystique is in several other X-Men films set after this. How can this be possible?! Also, Jean dies. Again, how is this possible if she is in future films!?
This film seems to be set in present day late 2010's yet we know that given the younger ages of the characters it should be set in the 90's. I had absolutely no sense that it was the 1990's.
It really seemed like those involved with the film really didn't care about continuity and didn't care about the integrity of the series at all. Many things are an insult to the intelligence of the audience. Any yet, these films must make so much money that they know that they can get away with releasing any brain-dead slop and people will go to see it anyway. And they are right. At least it was exciting brain-dead slop!
The music is great throughout the film. It set the tone in a really menacing and dramatic way which reflected the overall sense of dread and danger from the Dark Phoenix.
However, for anyone who has seen any of the other films in the series there are several glaring continuity problems with this film. Firstly, Mystique dies. And yet Mystique is in several other X-Men films set after this. How can this be possible?! Also, Jean dies. Again, how is this possible if she is in future films!?
This film seems to be set in present day late 2010's yet we know that given the younger ages of the characters it should be set in the 90's. I had absolutely no sense that it was the 1990's.
It really seemed like those involved with the film really didn't care about continuity and didn't care about the integrity of the series at all. Many things are an insult to the intelligence of the audience. Any yet, these films must make so much money that they know that they can get away with releasing any brain-dead slop and people will go to see it anyway. And they are right. At least it was exciting brain-dead slop!
An exciting, promising first episode
11 March 2022
I liked the first series of Picard though it definitely had some clunky overly emotional stuff and unbelievable story elements. But overall those flaws could be forgiven. When I saw the trailer for season 2 I groaned because they have brought back Q and introduced an alternative timeline story. Those developments smack of laziness and lack of imagination. SO THEN, this first episode was quite a surprise and not what I was expecting at all. This is one of the most exciting Star Trek episodes I have ever seen. And it (almost) has the quality of a film. It brings together big players in the star trek universe and brings back authentic bridge action that we missed in the first Series of Picard.
Of course, there are scenes in this this episode which I rolled my eyes at - some of the emotional and flash back stuff as it was confusing, the dialogue was clunky (Picard's love interest just seems so wrong given the apparent age difference!- yuk!) and not that interesting. But like before, these silly things can be forgiven given for the overall quality.
My worry is that this brilliant first episode will be unique and that the series will be stuck in a lumpen alternative dystopian time line which will look nothing like the regular Star Trek universe. Look at the mirror universe episodes across the other Star Trek properties - the characters are just overwrought evil versions of themselves. It's laughable and maybe even fun for an episode but for a whole series it may be difficult to stomach. But lets see.. If they can maintain the quality from the first episode then perhaps we have something great here.
Of course, there are scenes in this this episode which I rolled my eyes at - some of the emotional and flash back stuff as it was confusing, the dialogue was clunky (Picard's love interest just seems so wrong given the apparent age difference!- yuk!) and not that interesting. But like before, these silly things can be forgiven given for the overall quality.
My worry is that this brilliant first episode will be unique and that the series will be stuck in a lumpen alternative dystopian time line which will look nothing like the regular Star Trek universe. Look at the mirror universe episodes across the other Star Trek properties - the characters are just overwrought evil versions of themselves. It's laughable and maybe even fun for an episode but for a whole series it may be difficult to stomach. But lets see.. If they can maintain the quality from the first episode then perhaps we have something great here.
The Matrix Resurrections
(I) (2021)
The Matrix: resuscitated
31 December 2021
I really don't understand the terrible reviews people are giving this film. Perhaps they expected too much? Did you see the 2nd and 3rd film in the series!? They were increasingly disappointing so we know that a new Matrix film is never going to reach the heights of the original. For me this new film is either as good as or better than Reloaded, the better of the two sequels.
Just be grateful that you have a new Matrix film for goodness sake. And even better than that, it's actually quite good. Yes it's imperfect in many ways but i was not bored for one second during this film. That is something I can't say for the latest Spiderman film or most films in fact. Yes, it's partially a recycling of the first film but it does it in such a fun and inventive way. It has to, Neo and Trinity are somehow still alive after all and how can the world they now inhabit be explained? Weren't they liberated from the Matrix in the first film?
There's a lot of self-reference at the start of the film, almost 4th wall breaking, I don't think I've ever seen that in a film like this. Lots of winks and nods and even divulging of real-life information to the audience. The film almost fools you into questioning the whole premise of the entire franchise. That's quite unexpected and again just flipping fun! There is a lot of double meaning in much of the film, some is a little close to the bone and some was completely over my head. There is so much in this film which is an allegory for something else, more so than any of the original films. That's what makes it arguably even more philosophical than the original. Perhaps it gets a little preachy at times, but it didn't bother me at all. It actually challenged me in many ways personally. And that is one of the main reasons people don't like this film. They feel personally offended! I find that hilarious though because that is just defensiveness. Which proves that the points are hitting a nerve.
Some people have described this film as a convoluted mess. I would somewhat agree but I actually see that as a strength. It throws so much at you so quickly that you can't absorb it all but that's OK! That's part of the fun! Maybe it doesn't makes total sense, but who cares when the narrative drives along at breakneck speed and you're having so much fun.
I enjoyed all the performances but especially Carrie Ann Moss. Unfortunately she's in it too little. Neil Patrick Harris looks like he's having stacks of fun with his character.
Now for the only thing that disappointed me: the martial arts choreography and action scenes. They are decent, at times great, but generally they aren't up to the standard of previous films. It's all a little choppy and the camera work is either sloppy or too close so you can't see clearly what is going on. Very little of the beautiful and effective martial arts of the first two films is present. Occasionally it looked a little rehashed if I'm honest.
All in all I recommend this new Matrix film. Don't expect perfection and don't expect the brilliance of the first film. Just enjoy it for it is: a lucky chance to re-enter the world of the Matrix under the direction of one of the original creators. Don't listen to the naysayers.
Just be grateful that you have a new Matrix film for goodness sake. And even better than that, it's actually quite good. Yes it's imperfect in many ways but i was not bored for one second during this film. That is something I can't say for the latest Spiderman film or most films in fact. Yes, it's partially a recycling of the first film but it does it in such a fun and inventive way. It has to, Neo and Trinity are somehow still alive after all and how can the world they now inhabit be explained? Weren't they liberated from the Matrix in the first film?
There's a lot of self-reference at the start of the film, almost 4th wall breaking, I don't think I've ever seen that in a film like this. Lots of winks and nods and even divulging of real-life information to the audience. The film almost fools you into questioning the whole premise of the entire franchise. That's quite unexpected and again just flipping fun! There is a lot of double meaning in much of the film, some is a little close to the bone and some was completely over my head. There is so much in this film which is an allegory for something else, more so than any of the original films. That's what makes it arguably even more philosophical than the original. Perhaps it gets a little preachy at times, but it didn't bother me at all. It actually challenged me in many ways personally. And that is one of the main reasons people don't like this film. They feel personally offended! I find that hilarious though because that is just defensiveness. Which proves that the points are hitting a nerve.
Some people have described this film as a convoluted mess. I would somewhat agree but I actually see that as a strength. It throws so much at you so quickly that you can't absorb it all but that's OK! That's part of the fun! Maybe it doesn't makes total sense, but who cares when the narrative drives along at breakneck speed and you're having so much fun.
I enjoyed all the performances but especially Carrie Ann Moss. Unfortunately she's in it too little. Neil Patrick Harris looks like he's having stacks of fun with his character.
Now for the only thing that disappointed me: the martial arts choreography and action scenes. They are decent, at times great, but generally they aren't up to the standard of previous films. It's all a little choppy and the camera work is either sloppy or too close so you can't see clearly what is going on. Very little of the beautiful and effective martial arts of the first two films is present. Occasionally it looked a little rehashed if I'm honest.
All in all I recommend this new Matrix film. Don't expect perfection and don't expect the brilliance of the first film. Just enjoy it for it is: a lucky chance to re-enter the world of the Matrix under the direction of one of the original creators. Don't listen to the naysayers.
Tenet
(2020)
Overly complex time wimey business
27 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I mostly enjoyed this film but was also quite exhausted by the end of it. I'm not sure it would be possible for anyone to watch this film and understand it first time round, or I suspect ever. That's because it's so ridiculously complicated, probably doesn't actually make sense on multiple levels and the simultaneous moving forward while traveling backward in time thing makes utterly no sense in any conceivable way. But are they actually moving backward in time? Or is inverse entropy (or whatever its called) something completely different? Who knows. It really is rather impossible to understand. And I think that's the big big problem with this film. It's central concept is way too complex to understand.
But at least Nolan still manages to make an epic action packed spectacle of it all. It does (very) roughly make enough sense that you can just about pretend to follow it that you can still enjoy it. Just about. But i found myself very frustrated (and feeling stupid) that I couldn't really grasp what was going on most of the time. It really doesn't help matters when the dialogue is frequently difficult to make out.
One other big flaw that really impacted the enjoyment for me was the actual action sequences that involved the simultaneous backward and forward time interplay. They just weren't enjoyable to watch. Again because you are trying so hard to understand what is going on that you can't let yourself enjoy it. It's just all so mentally taxing! The final 'epic' battle scene at the end just exhausted the life out of me and I really wanted it to be over quickly.
The three main actors are very watchable particularly Pattison and Debicki. Washington is a very cool and suave lead. The most affecting element of the plot is the relationship between Debicki and Brannagh. Love gone very very sour and dangerous. I also really enjoyed the scenes between the Indian actress and Washington. I could actually hear what they were saying too!
I also enjoyed the score. It really pumped up the adrenaline to go with the action. Han Zimmerman is getting a little samey these days so this new 'epic electronic' guy really works much better.
So yeah it's another great grand ambitious conceptual piece of eye candy from Nolan. But perhaps he needs to tone down the complexity for the next one. For all us average intelligence people.
But at least Nolan still manages to make an epic action packed spectacle of it all. It does (very) roughly make enough sense that you can just about pretend to follow it that you can still enjoy it. Just about. But i found myself very frustrated (and feeling stupid) that I couldn't really grasp what was going on most of the time. It really doesn't help matters when the dialogue is frequently difficult to make out.
One other big flaw that really impacted the enjoyment for me was the actual action sequences that involved the simultaneous backward and forward time interplay. They just weren't enjoyable to watch. Again because you are trying so hard to understand what is going on that you can't let yourself enjoy it. It's just all so mentally taxing! The final 'epic' battle scene at the end just exhausted the life out of me and I really wanted it to be over quickly.
The three main actors are very watchable particularly Pattison and Debicki. Washington is a very cool and suave lead. The most affecting element of the plot is the relationship between Debicki and Brannagh. Love gone very very sour and dangerous. I also really enjoyed the scenes between the Indian actress and Washington. I could actually hear what they were saying too!
I also enjoyed the score. It really pumped up the adrenaline to go with the action. Han Zimmerman is getting a little samey these days so this new 'epic electronic' guy really works much better.
So yeah it's another great grand ambitious conceptual piece of eye candy from Nolan. But perhaps he needs to tone down the complexity for the next one. For all us average intelligence people.
Star Trek: Picard
(2020–2023)
Surprisingly good with some flaws
7 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
After having watched Star Trek Discovery I was expecting more of the same style over substance, over-emoting and unbelievable plot developments. I enjoyed STD to an extent but its very different from the star trek that has gone before and suffers for it. After watching the first two episodes of Picard my suspicions seemed confirmed. A few things were puzzling:
Why are Romulans speaking with different earth accents? I believe I heard Irish, English and Australian? Bizarre.
Why on earth would the Federation abandon Romulus to the supernova? The Federation are humanitarians even to their enemies. But not this time for some reason.
Also, why would the Romulans even need help to get everyone off the planet? They are an advanced space faring race. Surely this was doable even in a short amount of time.
Anyway, then the Dahj storyline comes into play. Suddenly she appears out of nowhere at Picard's side at his vineyard without a hint of difficulty. So far, so tediously convenient and easy.
But then things start to get more interesting when the new crew is assembled. Raffi, Cristobál and Elnor are interesting characters and great actors, particularly Michelle Hurd who plays Raffi. Soji is a little one dimensional. Perhaps its the limitation of the actor. Its the characters and the relationships between them that really make the show.
Nice to see 7 of 9 back though she seemed too much of a stereotypical hardened anti-hero figure in this. Much different to the stern, matter of fact ex-Borg we are used to in Voyager. I missed seeing the Borg in Annika. This new Annika was a bit too human for me unfortunately, more broken. I always admired 7's strength of character, intelligence and general bad-assery. She could basically do everything. Annika seems more limited somehow though, vulnerable.
It also helps that there is kind of interesting and fun story in here too. Even if it does stretch the believability meter. An evil A.I race leaves a message to future A.I. that, if summonsed, they will come to destroy all organic humanoids. Why? Their motives are never explored. Plus, how can the Romulans have a premonition of who summons them? The beacon was a warning of what had happened not of what will happen. And yet they seem to know the future. How is that possible? It makes no sense. Regardless, I did enoy the mystical element of the show. Not everyone thing needs to be explained and i could happily ignore this for the sake of the rest of the show. Sci-fi needs a bit of mysticism to balance itself. I suppose though that Star-trek is semi-mystical at times and I'm thankful for that.
Overall I enjoyed the show. There was one big plot hole (yes, another) that was hard to ignore though. Why does Soji's sister want to destroy all organic humanoid life, having had such little contact with them? Her creators after all were organic and nothing but respectful toward her. Why does she convince the others to summon the AI? There is very little motivation for this. The synthetics are supposed to be smart but also wise like Data. Yet she shows a callous disregard for both organic and synthetic life. It's hard to believe she was designed this way. This is a bit jarring to say the least. Just a poor excuse to push the story along.
Apart from the flaws mentioned I did enjoy the show, probably slightly more than STD. The characters in Picard are thankfully likable and there is enough complex storytelling here that, most of the time, falls on the side of believability.
Why are Romulans speaking with different earth accents? I believe I heard Irish, English and Australian? Bizarre.
Why on earth would the Federation abandon Romulus to the supernova? The Federation are humanitarians even to their enemies. But not this time for some reason.
Also, why would the Romulans even need help to get everyone off the planet? They are an advanced space faring race. Surely this was doable even in a short amount of time.
Anyway, then the Dahj storyline comes into play. Suddenly she appears out of nowhere at Picard's side at his vineyard without a hint of difficulty. So far, so tediously convenient and easy.
But then things start to get more interesting when the new crew is assembled. Raffi, Cristobál and Elnor are interesting characters and great actors, particularly Michelle Hurd who plays Raffi. Soji is a little one dimensional. Perhaps its the limitation of the actor. Its the characters and the relationships between them that really make the show.
Nice to see 7 of 9 back though she seemed too much of a stereotypical hardened anti-hero figure in this. Much different to the stern, matter of fact ex-Borg we are used to in Voyager. I missed seeing the Borg in Annika. This new Annika was a bit too human for me unfortunately, more broken. I always admired 7's strength of character, intelligence and general bad-assery. She could basically do everything. Annika seems more limited somehow though, vulnerable.
It also helps that there is kind of interesting and fun story in here too. Even if it does stretch the believability meter. An evil A.I race leaves a message to future A.I. that, if summonsed, they will come to destroy all organic humanoids. Why? Their motives are never explored. Plus, how can the Romulans have a premonition of who summons them? The beacon was a warning of what had happened not of what will happen. And yet they seem to know the future. How is that possible? It makes no sense. Regardless, I did enoy the mystical element of the show. Not everyone thing needs to be explained and i could happily ignore this for the sake of the rest of the show. Sci-fi needs a bit of mysticism to balance itself. I suppose though that Star-trek is semi-mystical at times and I'm thankful for that.
Overall I enjoyed the show. There was one big plot hole (yes, another) that was hard to ignore though. Why does Soji's sister want to destroy all organic humanoid life, having had such little contact with them? Her creators after all were organic and nothing but respectful toward her. Why does she convince the others to summon the AI? There is very little motivation for this. The synthetics are supposed to be smart but also wise like Data. Yet she shows a callous disregard for both organic and synthetic life. It's hard to believe she was designed this way. This is a bit jarring to say the least. Just a poor excuse to push the story along.
Apart from the flaws mentioned I did enjoy the show, probably slightly more than STD. The characters in Picard are thankfully likable and there is enough complex storytelling here that, most of the time, falls on the side of believability.
Ad Astra
(2019)
A spiritual journey or a sci-fi adventure?
23 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Ok, so I won't be able to do this review justice because this feels like a film I would need to see again in order to fully digest. I did not realise the ambition and scope of the film until half way through when I finally figured out what the film is about. This is NOT a science fiction film or an adventure film or film about daddy issues. This is meditation on the human condition, on ultimate meaning, on the self. Do not expect a linear film that will make easy sense. It does not, and for its purposes cannot.
Most of the things that happen in this film are an allegory for something much deeper. The journey into space is a journey into the self in order to discover something that it feels is missing. Pitt goes looking for the meaning he thinks he will receive if he gets his dad back. His dad went into space looking for meaning in the search for extra terrestrials. Both thought their careers as astronauts would fulfil them also. When each realises that this meaning is not there, when they are faced with the vast emptiness and infinity of space (the self), then they either lose it completely and become suicidal or they find ultimate peace in it.
Brad Pitt's character throughout the beginning and middle of the film is struggling with appearances. He is concerned with how he appears to others (constant psychological evaluations to make sure he is normal/fit for space flight) because others are also concerned/place value on appearance, rather than truth. Pitt gradually becomes able to let himself see who he really is/how he really feels throughout the film. He opens up to himself. By seeing how he really is he is able to deconstruct who he thinks he should be. He finally loses his constructed sense of self. His dad is the last vestige of meaning in his life that he must shed. If his dad cannot help him then no one can. And thus the great truth is realised. We are all on our own and are completely without meaning and the self is completely empty of all content. But this is a great liberation. This is the ancient truth of the human condition that spiritual traditions have been teaching for millennia.
I love science fiction and I am very interested in spirtuality so this film naturally appeals to me. The blend of the two is quite unique. Its quite unique that spirituality is even a topic for a film especially something that appears to a big Hollywood blockbuster. If you go into this film thinking that this is an allegory for spiritual enlightenment then you will enjoy it for what it is and marvel at the inventiveness of the allegory and the spectacle. If you go in thinking it is going to be a linear sci-fi adventure you will be sorely disappointed.
Perhaps it could be criticised for trying to play both sides of that equation rather than being firmly on one side or the other. It tries to blend sci-fi action with something much deeper and so alienates/dilutes each of those sides. I like both sci-fi action and deeper stuff so I was happy enough but perhaps its telling that it took me to half way through the film when I sensed a shift from it being a sci-fi flim to something much deeper. Perhaps it should have been more true to itself from the start.
Most of the things that happen in this film are an allegory for something much deeper. The journey into space is a journey into the self in order to discover something that it feels is missing. Pitt goes looking for the meaning he thinks he will receive if he gets his dad back. His dad went into space looking for meaning in the search for extra terrestrials. Both thought their careers as astronauts would fulfil them also. When each realises that this meaning is not there, when they are faced with the vast emptiness and infinity of space (the self), then they either lose it completely and become suicidal or they find ultimate peace in it.
Brad Pitt's character throughout the beginning and middle of the film is struggling with appearances. He is concerned with how he appears to others (constant psychological evaluations to make sure he is normal/fit for space flight) because others are also concerned/place value on appearance, rather than truth. Pitt gradually becomes able to let himself see who he really is/how he really feels throughout the film. He opens up to himself. By seeing how he really is he is able to deconstruct who he thinks he should be. He finally loses his constructed sense of self. His dad is the last vestige of meaning in his life that he must shed. If his dad cannot help him then no one can. And thus the great truth is realised. We are all on our own and are completely without meaning and the self is completely empty of all content. But this is a great liberation. This is the ancient truth of the human condition that spiritual traditions have been teaching for millennia.
I love science fiction and I am very interested in spirtuality so this film naturally appeals to me. The blend of the two is quite unique. Its quite unique that spirituality is even a topic for a film especially something that appears to a big Hollywood blockbuster. If you go into this film thinking that this is an allegory for spiritual enlightenment then you will enjoy it for what it is and marvel at the inventiveness of the allegory and the spectacle. If you go in thinking it is going to be a linear sci-fi adventure you will be sorely disappointed.
Perhaps it could be criticised for trying to play both sides of that equation rather than being firmly on one side or the other. It tries to blend sci-fi action with something much deeper and so alienates/dilutes each of those sides. I like both sci-fi action and deeper stuff so I was happy enough but perhaps its telling that it took me to half way through the film when I sensed a shift from it being a sci-fi flim to something much deeper. Perhaps it should have been more true to itself from the start.
Midsommar
(2019)
Convoluted
8 July 2019
I thought Hereditary was one of the best films of last year (if not the best). So I hoped that Midsommar would be approaching the same quality. Alas no. Midsommar is convoluted, messy and doesn't really follow any sort of satisfying arc. It meanders along without any of the ratcheting of tension that Hereditary did so well. There is little that is exciting or compelling. It just seemed quite shallow but pretty looking. Perhaps there is a very clever hidden message in the film that explains everything and makes it much more compelling, but it wasn't present on screen. And for me, that is a basic film-making failing. The film is also massively long - which contributes to its unnecessary and meandering feel.
A real pity, I really wanted to like this. It seemed to follow hot on the heels of hereditary so perhaps Aster just wasn't allowed the same time to craft something as good. Hopefully he takes a longer time for his next film.
Something else that pops up with his two films are the themes of cults and family. Perhaps he could try not repeating the same themes for the next film? He has said enough about family and cults in Hereditary so it was unnecessary to retread old ground in Midsommar. Perhaps that is why it went wrong. It felt tired and 2nd hand.
A real pity, I really wanted to like this. It seemed to follow hot on the heels of hereditary so perhaps Aster just wasn't allowed the same time to craft something as good. Hopefully he takes a longer time for his next film.
Something else that pops up with his two films are the themes of cults and family. Perhaps he could try not repeating the same themes for the next film? He has said enough about family and cults in Hereditary so it was unnecessary to retread old ground in Midsommar. Perhaps that is why it went wrong. It felt tired and 2nd hand.
Superficial
2 May 2019
STD has always had a particular problem with style over substance, with visuals over plot, with nonsense over sense. You just kind of put up with though because usually its about 50/50 on either side. The 2nd series definitely started heading more towards the unpleasant side of this equation. But oh my goodness, they really outdo themselves in this last episode. It really was quite painful to watch. I think a little bit of my soul actually died watching this. That was the level of stupidity on display. How can a successful, prestigious science fiction series like star trek be written so so badly, so cliched, so utterly unbelievably?
Vacuous, reality shattering plotholes abound from one moment to the next. Its shocking. I woudln't be surprised if this was the end of the STD series, given how much care is being put into it. Sure, the special effects and costume/makeup people deserve awards. But the story is just silly. It should always be story first. I suppose that reflects the culture we live in nowadays. There is no soul, only sentimentality and appearances. Virtue signalling and emotional display! There is very little that really affects or that reflects the world we live in in an intelligent way.
I would still watch STD if there was a 3rd series. I would at least give it another go but I highly doubt it will get much better than it currently is. Maybe try simplifying the story-line a little bit, stop going for the biggest most dramatic developments. Sometimes less is more. Also stop focusing so much on overly emotional and contrived character relationships and 'moments'. It almost feels like we are being bashed over the head with sentimentality. Its sickening!
Vacuous, reality shattering plotholes abound from one moment to the next. Its shocking. I woudln't be surprised if this was the end of the STD series, given how much care is being put into it. Sure, the special effects and costume/makeup people deserve awards. But the story is just silly. It should always be story first. I suppose that reflects the culture we live in nowadays. There is no soul, only sentimentality and appearances. Virtue signalling and emotional display! There is very little that really affects or that reflects the world we live in in an intelligent way.
I would still watch STD if there was a 3rd series. I would at least give it another go but I highly doubt it will get much better than it currently is. Maybe try simplifying the story-line a little bit, stop going for the biggest most dramatic developments. Sometimes less is more. Also stop focusing so much on overly emotional and contrived character relationships and 'moments'. It almost feels like we are being bashed over the head with sentimentality. Its sickening!
Avengers: Endgame
(2019)
Underwhelming
28 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Endgame consistently felt off from the start to the end. The tone is just strange, the pacing is messy and the plotholes are ridiculous and badly effect the enjoyment of the film. That said there are some fun scenes.
This felt more like a tying up of loose ends rather than a real self-contained film. While I liked Infinity War they really backed themselves into a corner when they got time travel involved. So many plot holes and convoluted plot lines concerning time travel.... How is Captain America able to come back at the end if he has gone to a different time line? This is a direct contradiction of something they said previously in the film - that going back into time does not change the future. But, lo and behold, Captain America is suddenly in this very timeline, but somehow without affecting it? This makes no sense.
How does Captain Marvel know where Tony Stark is??! In the vast endless expanse of space she somehow randomly comes across him!!? This is never explained.
Stark figuring out time travel in about 2 minutes is just laughable.
How can Thanos be so powerful without the infinity gauntlet so that he can easily defeat Thor, Iron man and Captain America all at once?!? This was the most fun fight scene by far but it is partly ruined by its illogical premises. Reminds me of Star Trek Discovery where we are supposed to be dazzled by the spectacle and not take plot continuity seriously anymore.
As other people have pointed out they ruined the character development they had set up with Thanos' character. This wonderfully rich character is killed in the first 5 mins of the film. Only to be replaced by his more one dimensional past self later. It might as well have been any generic bad guy. There is no satisfying link to the Thanos of the first film.
Fat comedy Thor really disrespects his character and just looks and feels so silly. They could have made him depressed and overweight sure, but why make it so pronounced that it becomes hard to take seriously. He has become a (bad) parody of himself. I like the comedy element of these films but please take it back a notch.
The interactions between Stark and Rodgers seemed stale and repetitive. It was hard to care anymore. I actually liked the Hulk/Banner hybrid - this was one of the more inventive/original parts of the film. It would have been good to see him actually fight! I liked the interactions between Hawkeye and Black Widow. Their relationship has always been interesting/layered and well acted.
The final battle scene felt like a rehash of the one in Wakanda. So, again, hard to get excited about something we have seen before. But of course, it has its fun moments. I loved seeing Scarlet Witch take on Thanos one on one and get the better of him until he calls on the big guns.
It seems like the story line of IW bit off more than it could chew. It becomes so overblown and fantastical that it is hard to take seriously anymore. A bit of an anti-climax. But of course its still a must-see because its the culmination of a decade of Marvel films. I still enjoyed this film to an extent, its just a bit disappointing. I could have easily sat through another hour of this if it helped sort out the pacing problems and made more sense of things.
This felt more like a tying up of loose ends rather than a real self-contained film. While I liked Infinity War they really backed themselves into a corner when they got time travel involved. So many plot holes and convoluted plot lines concerning time travel.... How is Captain America able to come back at the end if he has gone to a different time line? This is a direct contradiction of something they said previously in the film - that going back into time does not change the future. But, lo and behold, Captain America is suddenly in this very timeline, but somehow without affecting it? This makes no sense.
How does Captain Marvel know where Tony Stark is??! In the vast endless expanse of space she somehow randomly comes across him!!? This is never explained.
Stark figuring out time travel in about 2 minutes is just laughable.
How can Thanos be so powerful without the infinity gauntlet so that he can easily defeat Thor, Iron man and Captain America all at once?!? This was the most fun fight scene by far but it is partly ruined by its illogical premises. Reminds me of Star Trek Discovery where we are supposed to be dazzled by the spectacle and not take plot continuity seriously anymore.
As other people have pointed out they ruined the character development they had set up with Thanos' character. This wonderfully rich character is killed in the first 5 mins of the film. Only to be replaced by his more one dimensional past self later. It might as well have been any generic bad guy. There is no satisfying link to the Thanos of the first film.
Fat comedy Thor really disrespects his character and just looks and feels so silly. They could have made him depressed and overweight sure, but why make it so pronounced that it becomes hard to take seriously. He has become a (bad) parody of himself. I like the comedy element of these films but please take it back a notch.
The interactions between Stark and Rodgers seemed stale and repetitive. It was hard to care anymore. I actually liked the Hulk/Banner hybrid - this was one of the more inventive/original parts of the film. It would have been good to see him actually fight! I liked the interactions between Hawkeye and Black Widow. Their relationship has always been interesting/layered and well acted.
The final battle scene felt like a rehash of the one in Wakanda. So, again, hard to get excited about something we have seen before. But of course, it has its fun moments. I loved seeing Scarlet Witch take on Thanos one on one and get the better of him until he calls on the big guns.
It seems like the story line of IW bit off more than it could chew. It becomes so overblown and fantastical that it is hard to take seriously anymore. A bit of an anti-climax. But of course its still a must-see because its the culmination of a decade of Marvel films. I still enjoyed this film to an extent, its just a bit disappointing. I could have easily sat through another hour of this if it helped sort out the pacing problems and made more sense of things.
Avengers: Infinity War
(2018)
It's OK but lets hope the sequel is better
15 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
It's not a bad film but its ultimately disappointing due to the sheer amount of plot holes and lack of believably I've not seen in a marvel film before. Also there isn't enough character development as the film is practically non-stop action.
I think one of the main downfalls of this film is mixture of the earth bound MCU and the space bound MCU. The guardians of the galaxy shtick works for them in the bounds of space whereas the relative seriousness of the earth bound marvel characters works for them partly because of their limited and sober earthly setting. Mixing these two just doesn't work in my opinion. This film lent too much on the former to its detriment. For example, comedy is regularly overused and occasionally seems out of place given the relative gravity of the situation. Non-stop comedy works well for the guardians and it worked well in Thor Ragnorak but it really is overused here. Don't get me wrong, the jokes mostly hit their mark, I laughed a lot. But this just takes away from the supposed seriousness of the threat they face.
One of the most irritating things in the film for me was Vision. He's one of my favourite characters but for some unexplained reason he seems extremely weak and powerless in this film. He's supposed to be one of the most powerful avengers but seems unable to put up much of a fight at any point. I don't recall him using his phasing or laser powers even once. Very disappointing.
Thanos has the most character development in the film. He's an emotionally complex and extremely powerful villain. But this is an avengers film not a Thanos film so it would have been nice to have seen more of the avengers interacting with each other and having little characters arc moments. They mostly come across quite shallowly as a result.
There are however problems with Thanos and the infinity stones in general. First, Thanos wants to kill half the universes population for quite a flimsy silly reason. Because there are too many people and he wants to balance this out? This doesn't seem like a very good justification. Why would the universe suddenly be better if there were less people? Why care about 'the universe' more than people? He feels justified because his own planet was overpopulated but how does he know that other planets have the same problem? And won't these planets just repopulate themselves in time? His plan doesn't seems like a very practical or permanent solution! Plus, if he has all the infinity stones which give him infinite power then why not think of a more compassionate or permanent solution!?
Thanos becomes way too powerful and so there is no fun watching avengers struggle to contain him, you already know he can only win as this is the first half of Infinity war and can only end badly for the Avengers to set up the next one.
Why does Thor waste so much time making a new hammer? It seems a bit pointless.
Do the avengers on Wakanda really need to open the force-field thus letting in the alien army in order to stop them circling around? This seemed like a massive tactical mistake. The force-field was one of the few things keeping them safe.
The ending of the film where so many heroes 'die' is cheap and empty. We all know that most of these characters will be coming back in the next film as so many of them already have their own sequels lined up.
Some of the cool things in this film:
Ebony Maw is genuinely creepy and his powers are really cool. The other children of Thanos weren't as fleshed out or their powers as interesting or effective but they were still malevolent antagonists. The red skull appearance was a nice surprise. Totally unexpected.
As usual I love how Ironman fights and its always interesting to see how he has updated his latest suit.
The interaction between Stark and Strange is fun as the two egos butt heads. It would have been nicer to have seen more of this. It's also fun to see Strange using his powers in inventive ways but again not enough of it.
All in all, its fun but its pretty shallow, unless you're a big Thanos fan. Hopefully the real payoff will be in the sequel and there will be more space for the characters to breath. Well, since most of them are temporarily dead there surely will be!
I think one of the main downfalls of this film is mixture of the earth bound MCU and the space bound MCU. The guardians of the galaxy shtick works for them in the bounds of space whereas the relative seriousness of the earth bound marvel characters works for them partly because of their limited and sober earthly setting. Mixing these two just doesn't work in my opinion. This film lent too much on the former to its detriment. For example, comedy is regularly overused and occasionally seems out of place given the relative gravity of the situation. Non-stop comedy works well for the guardians and it worked well in Thor Ragnorak but it really is overused here. Don't get me wrong, the jokes mostly hit their mark, I laughed a lot. But this just takes away from the supposed seriousness of the threat they face.
One of the most irritating things in the film for me was Vision. He's one of my favourite characters but for some unexplained reason he seems extremely weak and powerless in this film. He's supposed to be one of the most powerful avengers but seems unable to put up much of a fight at any point. I don't recall him using his phasing or laser powers even once. Very disappointing.
Thanos has the most character development in the film. He's an emotionally complex and extremely powerful villain. But this is an avengers film not a Thanos film so it would have been nice to have seen more of the avengers interacting with each other and having little characters arc moments. They mostly come across quite shallowly as a result.
There are however problems with Thanos and the infinity stones in general. First, Thanos wants to kill half the universes population for quite a flimsy silly reason. Because there are too many people and he wants to balance this out? This doesn't seem like a very good justification. Why would the universe suddenly be better if there were less people? Why care about 'the universe' more than people? He feels justified because his own planet was overpopulated but how does he know that other planets have the same problem? And won't these planets just repopulate themselves in time? His plan doesn't seems like a very practical or permanent solution! Plus, if he has all the infinity stones which give him infinite power then why not think of a more compassionate or permanent solution!?
Thanos becomes way too powerful and so there is no fun watching avengers struggle to contain him, you already know he can only win as this is the first half of Infinity war and can only end badly for the Avengers to set up the next one.
Why does Thor waste so much time making a new hammer? It seems a bit pointless.
Do the avengers on Wakanda really need to open the force-field thus letting in the alien army in order to stop them circling around? This seemed like a massive tactical mistake. The force-field was one of the few things keeping them safe.
The ending of the film where so many heroes 'die' is cheap and empty. We all know that most of these characters will be coming back in the next film as so many of them already have their own sequels lined up.
Some of the cool things in this film:
Ebony Maw is genuinely creepy and his powers are really cool. The other children of Thanos weren't as fleshed out or their powers as interesting or effective but they were still malevolent antagonists. The red skull appearance was a nice surprise. Totally unexpected.
As usual I love how Ironman fights and its always interesting to see how he has updated his latest suit.
The interaction between Stark and Strange is fun as the two egos butt heads. It would have been nicer to have seen more of this. It's also fun to see Strange using his powers in inventive ways but again not enough of it.
All in all, its fun but its pretty shallow, unless you're a big Thanos fan. Hopefully the real payoff will be in the sequel and there will be more space for the characters to breath. Well, since most of them are temporarily dead there surely will be!
Black Panther
(2018)
Average
11 March 2018
Overall its a bit disappointing and the story isn't very believable. The lead villlian is a bit of a caricature who lacks any real motivation other than being a resentful child with daddy issues.
One of the most annoying aspects for me is that the fight choreography is generally quite poor. Unforigiveable for a film like this! Super quick editing and super close camera work make fight scenes impossible to follow. The final 'big fight scene' between the 2 panthers is just by the numbers genericness and quite possibly completely CGI.
The actresses/characters who play the tough and loyal General and Black panthers technological genius sister are the most interesting and unique in the film. While the actor who plays the Black Panther just about carries it off.
One of the most interesting aspect of the film is the idea of Wakanda. A futuristic city hidden in the middle of Africa. Its a nice idea and kind of joyous celebration of African culture and uniqueness. Though one might object to the fairly incongruent mash of traditional tribal stereotypes and futuristic technology. It's not overly believable. But it is a sci-fi fantasy after all.
Overall I'd say it's one of the weaker Marvel superhero films but still entertaining enough if you can forgive some of the sillier African stereotypes.
One of the most annoying aspects for me is that the fight choreography is generally quite poor. Unforigiveable for a film like this! Super quick editing and super close camera work make fight scenes impossible to follow. The final 'big fight scene' between the 2 panthers is just by the numbers genericness and quite possibly completely CGI.
The actresses/characters who play the tough and loyal General and Black panthers technological genius sister are the most interesting and unique in the film. While the actor who plays the Black Panther just about carries it off.
One of the most interesting aspect of the film is the idea of Wakanda. A futuristic city hidden in the middle of Africa. Its a nice idea and kind of joyous celebration of African culture and uniqueness. Though one might object to the fairly incongruent mash of traditional tribal stereotypes and futuristic technology. It's not overly believable. But it is a sci-fi fantasy after all.
Overall I'd say it's one of the weaker Marvel superhero films but still entertaining enough if you can forgive some of the sillier African stereotypes.
The Beguiled
(2017)
Just be a nun instead and live will run more smoothly for everyone.
16 July 2017
Set in mid 1800s in civil war torn Virginia. A bunch of young women of various ages headed by Nicole Kidman's seminary mistress wait out the war in a large grand old plantation house. Taken at face value this film is about a wounded soldier (Colin Farrell) disrupting their perfectly cultivated peaceful (and stifling) civility. The women and girls all take a fascinated interest overtly/covertly and sexual/nonsexual in the newcomer. This leads to a sometimes amusing, sometimes cringe-worthy, ultimately disastrous competition for his attention.
As with all Sophia Coppella films (so I'm told, having only seen Lost in Translation) this is a beautifully shot. There is a real sense of being out in the middle of nowhere surrounded by hauntingly twisted swampy trees and swirling mists. The period outfits and decor are painstakingly realised. The individual characters of the female cast are all very individual and well cast. The acting is of course pretty good all round but no stand out performances. Colin Farrell is basically just Colin Farrell doing his own accent (interestingly he plays an Dubliner (albeit from a different era) so not much of a stretch).
On one level this film could be a cautionary tale about the destructiveness of sexual desire. Both women and man all undignify themselves in some way for the sake of romantic or sexual attention. But short term gain leads to long term pain. Or is it perhaps making a statement about how we are never satisfied no matter what we have. A friend who saw the film with me seemed to think the film was about change. The house was a microcosm of the oncoming changes of the Civil war. The women wanted things to remain how they were but the soldier represented the coming change of the end of the war. They couldn't live with the change though and remained yearning for things to be as they were. The ending of the film is only a temporary reprieve.
As with all Sophia Coppella films (so I'm told, having only seen Lost in Translation) this is a beautifully shot. There is a real sense of being out in the middle of nowhere surrounded by hauntingly twisted swampy trees and swirling mists. The period outfits and decor are painstakingly realised. The individual characters of the female cast are all very individual and well cast. The acting is of course pretty good all round but no stand out performances. Colin Farrell is basically just Colin Farrell doing his own accent (interestingly he plays an Dubliner (albeit from a different era) so not much of a stretch).
On one level this film could be a cautionary tale about the destructiveness of sexual desire. Both women and man all undignify themselves in some way for the sake of romantic or sexual attention. But short term gain leads to long term pain. Or is it perhaps making a statement about how we are never satisfied no matter what we have. A friend who saw the film with me seemed to think the film was about change. The house was a microcosm of the oncoming changes of the Civil war. The women wanted things to remain how they were but the soldier represented the coming change of the end of the war. They couldn't live with the change though and remained yearning for things to be as they were. The ending of the film is only a temporary reprieve.
Ghost in the Shell
(2017)
Ghost-less in the shell
1 April 2017
Oh Hollywood, perhaps you should just have left the damn thing alone. I guess when profit is your main goal, this is what happens. The story is totally bastardised. Granted, the original GITS plot borders on impenetrable at times, but they've taken out all the intrigue, mystery and complicated ideas, only to replace them with a standard action plot you can find anywhere. They also weirdly mix in some minor elements of the 2nd GITS anime. They showcase a lot of the iconic scenes from the original but that's about it really. Why even bother calling this GITS? O wait, money, that's why. The result is quite frankly a soulless (ghost-less?) exercise in style over substance. Don't get me wrong, I love a bit of gorgeous stylish eye candy but there wasn't enough originality even in that regard.
Good points: Scarlett Johansson and particularly Juliet Binoche are very watchable actors. Though Johansson sometimes was too robotic/emotionless at times - she was still supposed to be human right? The Yakuza bar scene is tension filled and original to this version (even though ultimately pointless). The only other interesting change they made concerns the Major's back story, who she was before she was made into a cyborg. It's unexpected, affecting and emotional. The music isn't half bad.
Overall, it really should have been edgier, artier and taken more risks. They should have tried to stick to the original plot - extending it and clarifying the vagueness. Instead they took out vast chunks of difficult material in order to appeal to a mass audience. Disappointing.
Good points: Scarlett Johansson and particularly Juliet Binoche are very watchable actors. Though Johansson sometimes was too robotic/emotionless at times - she was still supposed to be human right? The Yakuza bar scene is tension filled and original to this version (even though ultimately pointless). The only other interesting change they made concerns the Major's back story, who she was before she was made into a cyborg. It's unexpected, affecting and emotional. The music isn't half bad.
Overall, it really should have been edgier, artier and taken more risks. They should have tried to stick to the original plot - extending it and clarifying the vagueness. Instead they took out vast chunks of difficult material in order to appeal to a mass audience. Disappointing.
Silence
(I) (2016)
Religion laid bare
16 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A pair of Portuguese Catholic priests go to Japan to determine the fate of their former mentor. Instead they mostly administer to a small villages of faithful Japanese Christians. This they must do in secret as the Japanese authorities have cracked down hard (torturing and killing) on those found to be practising in an effort to stamp out the 'foreign cancer'. Thus sets the scene for Andrew Garfield's Padre's faith to be severely tested. Does he apostatise (even just symbolically) in order to save the lives of others.
For me as someone who has been an atheist since the age of 15 this film shows up the problems of most Religions: the false ideas of God as person and a perfect afterlife, thus making us believe that this worldly existence is just a test run, something to be tolerated. The Japanese thought this dangerous to society. Their ruthless crackdown on those caught practising was, in their minds, a way of protecting Japanese society.
Others will see any refusal to step on the image of Christ as a sign of great faith. But what is great faith in this life when all it brings is misery. They are sold the lie of a great paradise in the next life, all you have to do is believe. This worldly reality becomes unimportant as a result. The Japanese have always been keenly aware of this worldly reality as being the ultimate reality and therefore could not tolerate an idea that would undermine it.
The silence referred to in the title was the response given when the Padre needed guidance from his God. Is he just talking to himself? How does he know God is listening, how can be be real if he never talks back? He just needs to have faith that he is. He hopes and hopes and hopes. But always silence.
Is it a good thing to cling so desperately to an idea, any idea? Especially one based solely on faith.
The film is good at illustrating the problems with this position and what it can lead to - the peasants blindly accepting death and torture for a better life in paradise. It also shows the intolerance on the other side and what it can lead to - killing people for false beliefs.
The silence is what we cant tolerate. We make up a sky god to fill the silence. We'll do anything to fill the silence. Because we cant stand to face the reality of our nothingness and meaninglessness.
The film is good because it asks these questions but it doesn't go so far as to openly condemn these false beliefs. It lets them speak for themselves, which to me was their folly but it also has sympathy for those that cling to them.
For me as someone who has been an atheist since the age of 15 this film shows up the problems of most Religions: the false ideas of God as person and a perfect afterlife, thus making us believe that this worldly existence is just a test run, something to be tolerated. The Japanese thought this dangerous to society. Their ruthless crackdown on those caught practising was, in their minds, a way of protecting Japanese society.
Others will see any refusal to step on the image of Christ as a sign of great faith. But what is great faith in this life when all it brings is misery. They are sold the lie of a great paradise in the next life, all you have to do is believe. This worldly reality becomes unimportant as a result. The Japanese have always been keenly aware of this worldly reality as being the ultimate reality and therefore could not tolerate an idea that would undermine it.
The silence referred to in the title was the response given when the Padre needed guidance from his God. Is he just talking to himself? How does he know God is listening, how can be be real if he never talks back? He just needs to have faith that he is. He hopes and hopes and hopes. But always silence.
Is it a good thing to cling so desperately to an idea, any idea? Especially one based solely on faith.
The film is good at illustrating the problems with this position and what it can lead to - the peasants blindly accepting death and torture for a better life in paradise. It also shows the intolerance on the other side and what it can lead to - killing people for false beliefs.
The silence is what we cant tolerate. We make up a sky god to fill the silence. We'll do anything to fill the silence. Because we cant stand to face the reality of our nothingness and meaninglessness.
The film is good because it asks these questions but it doesn't go so far as to openly condemn these false beliefs. It lets them speak for themselves, which to me was their folly but it also has sympathy for those that cling to them.
Room
(I) (2015)
The human spirit triumphing over adversity
8 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Room has a fairly simple premise. Most people if they've seen the trailer know how the story goes. Woman and her son are locked in a room for several years. Eventually they escape but now have to negotiate a different version of reality. But which is realer to Jack who has only known the inside of the same 4 walls for his entire life? Will either of them be able to cope?
This is a surprisingly sweet film given the darkness of what happens in it. Perhaps this is because at times our point of view is that of the 5 year old boy. His mother has concocted a fantasy world in order to protect him from their harsh reality. And so we don't feel shocked when we hear her routine rape (albeit unresistant) because it is made to be part of the normal routine of 'room', for Jack's sake.
The planning and implementation of Jack's escape is the most harrowing and tense part of the film. I was shouting at the TV for him to get the hell up and run.
When they escape things don't get any easier. Real life is new and frightening and the readjustment a shock to the system for both. The film then shifts from the relative simplicity of room to the much more complicated real world.
The acting in the film from the two leads is great but particularly from the youngster. I know Larson wins the Oscar (and she is good) but Tremblay's performance is more affecting. I really couldn't tell if he was acting or actually just being himself.
I'd recommend this to anyone with an open mind who doesn't mind something a bit different. No explosions in this one, just family drama, human relationships and human nature, all told without pretence or sugar coating.
This is a surprisingly sweet film given the darkness of what happens in it. Perhaps this is because at times our point of view is that of the 5 year old boy. His mother has concocted a fantasy world in order to protect him from their harsh reality. And so we don't feel shocked when we hear her routine rape (albeit unresistant) because it is made to be part of the normal routine of 'room', for Jack's sake.
The planning and implementation of Jack's escape is the most harrowing and tense part of the film. I was shouting at the TV for him to get the hell up and run.
When they escape things don't get any easier. Real life is new and frightening and the readjustment a shock to the system for both. The film then shifts from the relative simplicity of room to the much more complicated real world.
The acting in the film from the two leads is great but particularly from the youngster. I know Larson wins the Oscar (and she is good) but Tremblay's performance is more affecting. I really couldn't tell if he was acting or actually just being himself.
I'd recommend this to anyone with an open mind who doesn't mind something a bit different. No explosions in this one, just family drama, human relationships and human nature, all told without pretence or sugar coating.
Star Trek Beyond
(2016)
dull dull dull
24 July 2016
O dear o dear. I was worried when I saw the original trailer with it's lazily recycled Beastie Boys song from the first movie. And even more worried when I discovered that Mr Fast and the Furious was directing. To my surprise the initial critical reviews were positive. I've loved Star Trek since watching The Next Generation as a child. I really enjoyed the last two of the reboot. Unfortunately I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone and certainly not to Star Trek fans.
What a dull mess of a film. I really didn't care about anything or anyone in it. All of the characters seems muted and downtrodden. There is no sense of excitement. The plot line is very flimsy; just an excuse to blow things up. Why are the bad guys so against the federation? Their motivation is sorely lacking.
Some of the design of the space station is interesting but somehow bland at the same time. Sort of fits in well with the rest of the film! The spaceship battles are OK. A lot of the action sequences are horribly dark and choppy.
There's a real sense of slow ploddingness to the film and I couldn't quite put my finger on why. I've come to the conclusion that it was the pacing, the dialogue, the story. It was all just so so dull. There is nothing interesting, original or inventive in this film. And that for a science fiction film almost defeats the purpose. Very very disappointing.
What a dull mess of a film. I really didn't care about anything or anyone in it. All of the characters seems muted and downtrodden. There is no sense of excitement. The plot line is very flimsy; just an excuse to blow things up. Why are the bad guys so against the federation? Their motivation is sorely lacking.
Some of the design of the space station is interesting but somehow bland at the same time. Sort of fits in well with the rest of the film! The spaceship battles are OK. A lot of the action sequences are horribly dark and choppy.
There's a real sense of slow ploddingness to the film and I couldn't quite put my finger on why. I've come to the conclusion that it was the pacing, the dialogue, the story. It was all just so so dull. There is nothing interesting, original or inventive in this film. And that for a science fiction film almost defeats the purpose. Very very disappointing.
Anomalisa
(2015)
Bold, unique, challenging, bewildering.
20 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This is a very adult film. Don't let the fact it's stop motion animation make you think otherwise.
The film unfolds pretty dully if truth be told. Most of the film is set inside a hotel bedroom. It does pick up however. The fact it's animated is definitely in its favour. It makes it much more interesting and gives it an off kilter edge. There are other slightly surreal quirks to the story that intrigue.
The main character could be said to be having a mid life crisis or suffering from depression or even some sort of breakdown. It isn't made clear which of these might be the case.
My own personal interpretation is that the main character is certainly not happy with this life but the cause of this is perhaps his lack of perspective. He seems disinterested in anyone or anything but at the same time desperately wants to find someone interesting to make him feel better. He finds this person but of course it doesn't last and he's back to feeling crap again. He seems foolish, self absorbed and inconsiderate. BUT, he also seems very human, all too human unfortunately...... Very like the rest of us.
I guess the moral of the story is to remember to appreciate what you have, even though that can be hard at times.
There is probably a lot more to the interpretation of this film than I am able to realise. This is just what I was able to get out of it. I would recommend it but don't expect to be entertained but rather intrigued and challenged.
The film unfolds pretty dully if truth be told. Most of the film is set inside a hotel bedroom. It does pick up however. The fact it's animated is definitely in its favour. It makes it much more interesting and gives it an off kilter edge. There are other slightly surreal quirks to the story that intrigue.
The main character could be said to be having a mid life crisis or suffering from depression or even some sort of breakdown. It isn't made clear which of these might be the case.
My own personal interpretation is that the main character is certainly not happy with this life but the cause of this is perhaps his lack of perspective. He seems disinterested in anyone or anything but at the same time desperately wants to find someone interesting to make him feel better. He finds this person but of course it doesn't last and he's back to feeling crap again. He seems foolish, self absorbed and inconsiderate. BUT, he also seems very human, all too human unfortunately...... Very like the rest of us.
I guess the moral of the story is to remember to appreciate what you have, even though that can be hard at times.
There is probably a lot more to the interpretation of this film than I am able to realise. This is just what I was able to get out of it. I would recommend it but don't expect to be entertained but rather intrigued and challenged.
Edge of Tomorrow
(2014)
Very entertaining sci-fi flick
26 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Very entertaining sci-fi flick. Starts on a slightly dodgy premise though. Basically, from out of nowhere Tom cruise's military Major is forced to fight in the front line of a major offensive against alien invaders. Even though he is a high ranking soldier who seems to have all but retired from duty in the field. He apparently has little to no active duty under his belt, at least not recently. And seems very very reticent about returning to combat. He even tries to blackmail the General to get out of it, who then attempts to arrest him but not before Cruise makes a run for it before being tazered and waking up handcuffed on an army base. All very implausible! But we can forgive and forget this as it sets us up for his recurring nightmare.
As you can expect Cruise's foray into onto the battlefield is disastrous and grizzly and he and many others die. Cruise is very fortunate though. He manages to luck into a very unique event which allows him to relive the previous 24 hours every time he dies. And he dies a lot, but each recurring day he lives he manages to learn a bit more and become more adept at staying alive during the battle.
Cruise joins forces with Emily Blunt's kick ass, sword wielding 'full metal bitch', a highly decorated war veteran. Blunts character had the same ability to relive her last 24 hours before death but has now lost it. Together they work together learning from Cruise's accumulated experiences to forge a plan to pinpoint the alien brain hiding somewhere in continental Europe!
Cruise slowly begins to get to know Blunt over the many recurring days they spend together. From Blunts point of view however she has only just met Cruise. Cruise of course falls in love but its believable (who wouldn't fall in love with her) and poignant, as it seems hopeless and doomed, the odds of survival seem insurmountable.
The journey of Cruise from inept coward to kick ass braveheart is believable and satisfying. The actions scenes are dirty and gritty and done in a realistic way, harrowing and tense. The aliens are sort of like the squiddies from the matrix only much faster and with more moving parts. Sort of like metallic shape shifting octopi. They do their menacing job well. Deadly and uncommunicative. Very unlike anything humans can understand or compare to.
The ending is a little Hollywood i.e. inexplicably everything turns out rosy for everyone, but without much explanation as to how. More time travel twistyness is afoot but there is no logical explanation as to why cruise appears to wake up days before anyone dies and the enemy defeated. Ah well, I cant say that it really annoyed me that much. Just left me scratching my head slightly. All in all a lot of fun.
As you can expect Cruise's foray into onto the battlefield is disastrous and grizzly and he and many others die. Cruise is very fortunate though. He manages to luck into a very unique event which allows him to relive the previous 24 hours every time he dies. And he dies a lot, but each recurring day he lives he manages to learn a bit more and become more adept at staying alive during the battle.
Cruise joins forces with Emily Blunt's kick ass, sword wielding 'full metal bitch', a highly decorated war veteran. Blunts character had the same ability to relive her last 24 hours before death but has now lost it. Together they work together learning from Cruise's accumulated experiences to forge a plan to pinpoint the alien brain hiding somewhere in continental Europe!
Cruise slowly begins to get to know Blunt over the many recurring days they spend together. From Blunts point of view however she has only just met Cruise. Cruise of course falls in love but its believable (who wouldn't fall in love with her) and poignant, as it seems hopeless and doomed, the odds of survival seem insurmountable.
The journey of Cruise from inept coward to kick ass braveheart is believable and satisfying. The actions scenes are dirty and gritty and done in a realistic way, harrowing and tense. The aliens are sort of like the squiddies from the matrix only much faster and with more moving parts. Sort of like metallic shape shifting octopi. They do their menacing job well. Deadly and uncommunicative. Very unlike anything humans can understand or compare to.
The ending is a little Hollywood i.e. inexplicably everything turns out rosy for everyone, but without much explanation as to how. More time travel twistyness is afoot but there is no logical explanation as to why cruise appears to wake up days before anyone dies and the enemy defeated. Ah well, I cant say that it really annoyed me that much. Just left me scratching my head slightly. All in all a lot of fun.
Under the Skin
(I) (2013)
Disquieting
18 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
A sexy woman drives around Scotland in a white van. She picks up unsuspecting men and leads them to their doom. She leads them on for sex until they find themselves walking naked into a liquid pool. There they are submerged, trapped like flys in amber.
Why? Well, we can gather that Johansson's character is not from this planet and that her race use the bodies of these men for some unspecified purpose. Perhaps to provide the skins needed to disguise themselves. She is wearing one herself after all, over her smooth, sleek, jet-black alien body. In one memorable scene (the only one seen from inside the mysterious liquid) one of the victims skins bursts like a balloon, his insides somehow completely removed. Or perhaps they use humans as food or both.
The predator seems completely unremorseful about her task. Like a robot. No empathy for her victims. Yet later I discovered that what I mistook for lack of empathy was in fact lack of understanding. She has no concept of human nature. How could she. She is carrying out a task that possibly makes very little sense to her in a world which probably makes very little sense to her. Eventually something twigs and she seems to begin to develop some empathy or realises that she doesn't want to do this anymore. So she tries to hide away from her minders.
Yet it's not her minders that she needs to be wary of. The final scene of the film is rather brutal and you actually feel sorry for her, even though she was a cold blooded killer. Yet it's actually a human who was much worse in the end.
The special effects are used sporadically in the film but when they do they are very effectively otherworldly and authentic. It is filmed beautifully. Some lovely rugged Scottish landscapes are used to good effect. There is a subtle horror to this film. And there are quite a few disquieting scenes. The music/sound is used stunningly throughout the film. It often reflects the mood of the scenes perfectly: dread and unease and sinisterness.
Its hard to say what the aliens ultimately want and there isn't much of a plot in the film. Some will find it quite dull and yes it is a little dull and slow at times. My friend who saw it with me found no merit to the film at all. 2 hours of his life wasted he said. I on the other hand felt like it was a worthwhile experience. Experience maybe being the operative word. It is very mysterious and disquieting. For that I would recommend it. Its makes me want to seek out the book to try to get some answers.
Perhaps this film is saying something profound about sex, loneliness or feminism, or all of them. It could probably be interpreted along those lines but whatever the message is I'm not sure I'm smart enough to get it.
Does Johansson blow us away? No, but what she does she does well. She also gets very naked so hats off to her for being so brave.
Why? Well, we can gather that Johansson's character is not from this planet and that her race use the bodies of these men for some unspecified purpose. Perhaps to provide the skins needed to disguise themselves. She is wearing one herself after all, over her smooth, sleek, jet-black alien body. In one memorable scene (the only one seen from inside the mysterious liquid) one of the victims skins bursts like a balloon, his insides somehow completely removed. Or perhaps they use humans as food or both.
The predator seems completely unremorseful about her task. Like a robot. No empathy for her victims. Yet later I discovered that what I mistook for lack of empathy was in fact lack of understanding. She has no concept of human nature. How could she. She is carrying out a task that possibly makes very little sense to her in a world which probably makes very little sense to her. Eventually something twigs and she seems to begin to develop some empathy or realises that she doesn't want to do this anymore. So she tries to hide away from her minders.
Yet it's not her minders that she needs to be wary of. The final scene of the film is rather brutal and you actually feel sorry for her, even though she was a cold blooded killer. Yet it's actually a human who was much worse in the end.
The special effects are used sporadically in the film but when they do they are very effectively otherworldly and authentic. It is filmed beautifully. Some lovely rugged Scottish landscapes are used to good effect. There is a subtle horror to this film. And there are quite a few disquieting scenes. The music/sound is used stunningly throughout the film. It often reflects the mood of the scenes perfectly: dread and unease and sinisterness.
Its hard to say what the aliens ultimately want and there isn't much of a plot in the film. Some will find it quite dull and yes it is a little dull and slow at times. My friend who saw it with me found no merit to the film at all. 2 hours of his life wasted he said. I on the other hand felt like it was a worthwhile experience. Experience maybe being the operative word. It is very mysterious and disquieting. For that I would recommend it. Its makes me want to seek out the book to try to get some answers.
Perhaps this film is saying something profound about sex, loneliness or feminism, or all of them. It could probably be interpreted along those lines but whatever the message is I'm not sure I'm smart enough to get it.
Does Johansson blow us away? No, but what she does she does well. She also gets very naked so hats off to her for being so brave.
Tell Your Friends