demented_peruvian Reviews

Poor Things (2023)

Intellectually heavy ode to classic sci-fi/fansy/horror and Victorian satire - Lanthimos style.

[7/10 · 9 March 2024]

"Poor Things" is a movie that I should love, but did not. A variation on "Frankenstein" that is aware that it follows "Deadly Friend", "Frankenhooker" and "Edward Scissorhands", it plays out feminist movement philosphies through each era, as well as psychology theories of Freud, Erickson, Kohlberg, and others, the sociology of Weber, Durkheim, and more, while maintianing Victorian satirical tones of Wilde and "Gulliver's Travels". It also openly homages Universal Horror, Hammer Horror, sci-fi and fantasy films of 1930s-50s, Karel Zerman's Verne adaptations, and "Young Frankenstein". There are some hints of Tim Burton and Wes Anderson.

Emma Stone is great, as are her co-stars, with Dafoe adding more to his legendary resume, Ruffalo going outside of his comfort zone and playing against type, and comedian Youssef playing the calm repressed one. The cinematography alternates black and white with high contrast/saturation color. Add dark humor straight out of the late 80s-90s. I almost expected Lloyd Kaufman to have a cameo.

So why did I not like it more? I am not a Yorgos Lanthimos fan. For me, his movies have many fun comments and details, but his grotesque scenes are too often, too repetitive, and too long, and there seems to be an act too many. If the fisheye lens in "The Favourite" was initially used well but then overused, here Lanthimos uses it for every other shot of the first half of the film, and randomly used afterwards, without style or purpose, to annoying effect. Lanthimos tires me, leaving me with the same feeling as if I spent all day playing with an active child.

However, if you do appreciate Lanthimos as well as everything I mentioned before, you will probably like this..

The Immortal Story (1968 TV Movie)

The stills are more interesting than the film

[6/10 · 7 September 2023]

Incommend Welles for finishing a film in this era. Unfortunately, this is not inspired work. It is short. Fhe make-up is poor. The film type is the cheap european late 60s/early 80s one that gives it an ugly gloss. It is inconsitently edited. The intro is awkwardly narrated and uses many rushed jump cuts for simple action. The rest of the film often has static shots for long lengths of time. Jeanne Mureau has the same ecpression the entire film, through several emotions. An obvious mediterranean town poorly pases for Macau, but is interesting to look at. There is unitentional humor with homosexual overtones and a cheesy sex scene, making me feel that I was watching an Andy Warhol horror comedy. Welles tries to make up for it by trying to make each shot be for some interesting angle, but is often repetitive, cliched (mirrors!), or pointless. And often the lengthy dialogue exchanges and performances felt like a play, rather than a film.

But: the central concept is an interesting one, and a theme that Welles was exploring in other films at the time: the nature of storytelling, especially the stories we are inclined to believe. The need for rich powerful men to have a story to tell, preferring to force some tales rather than hear the more interesting ones by those around them.

And despite my criticism of the forced nature of many shots and the odd editing, and Welles'discomfort of working with color, Welles does create some interesting images every so often. At times it even felt like he might pull it off and deliver a memorable movie or scene.

In sum: a curiosity for cinemaphiles.

The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming (1966)

Good idea displaced by lame humor

[6/10 · 2 July 2023]

"The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming" was a timely Cold War paranoia tale that now works best in the scenes where russian and american characters interacting. The humanity, mutual fear, and appreciation lead to some fun and insightful moments. Alan Arkin is particularly effective.

Stretching this out are scenes of townspeople interacting with each other and setting off hysteria over the smallest thing, irrationally and too impulsively after merely an incomplete sentence, even as little as someone's first three words. Conceptually it is funny and still relevant to current events. In practice it only gets the occasional laugh as it mostly goes for cheap clowning around in generic campy 60s comedy. All the usual country hicks and eccentric senior citizens. The 60s produced some of the funniest comedies ever, that still produce laughs from the new generations. It also produced many lazy ones with childish material that would barely get a chuckle at a toddler's playdate. This Oscar nominated movie often veers towards the latter humor.

When I was ready to give up, however, "The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming" was saved by its final act, taking unexpected turns.

Triangle of Sadness (2022)

It made me sad (and annoyed)

[3/10 · 10 March 2023]

If you loved "Force Majeur" and "The Square", then you already watched "Triangle of Sadness", think is brilliant, and are just reading this to see who has inferior taste to your exquisite palate of cinema, as evidenced by their daring to think that a Palm D'Or winner is obviously anything other than sheer brilliance.

If you disliked Östlund's two films, or had mixed feelings about either one, then you will likely feel the same about "Triangle of Sadness".

I am in the latter camp. I believe that Östlund would be a great director of short films, or better yet, of 5-10 second commercials of humor with social critique and awkawardness. Unfortunately for a feature film, Ostlund's humor does not work. He does not care to write a story, fill out any character, or build any connection between sequences. When he does have something clever or insightful, he destroys its impact stretches these bits by 100, filling the space with: -heavily photocopied cliches -attempts at humor that were stale from overuse either 50 or 5 years ago.

-random shots of staff working on some mundane task, usually in coridors.

-Social critique that feels quite empty and alienated from either 'the rich' or 'the poor'.

-Repeating the same gag, immediately.

-Dialogue where characters repeat back and forth the same 5 words.

"Traingle of Sadness" is no different. It has an amusing to funny opening segment. Afterwards, every scene and sequence should have been be edited into 1/20th of the running time of each. What does unfortunately make it stand out is that it's repetition of brief dialogue is out of control, starting with the 2nd sequence. For example, if I wanted to write this review in Östlund's style, the full extent of it would be: "Östlund should direct short movies." "Short movies? Östlund?" "Yes, Östlund".

"Östlund! Are you sure?" "Yes, Östlund. Shorts".

"But, how... why... Östlund!" "I mean, yes, I know..." "But... shorts? Are you sure?" ... and so on, for 20 pages.

These exchanges do not build up with funny elaborations, as is the rule of comedy, but remain flat, other than being yelled eventually. It just led me to wonder what Östlund was trying to do. The couple's uncomfortable arguments seemed patterned after Woody Allen, but without the intellectualizing. Östlund may believe that he is developing a Mamet effect with his repetition amid awkwardness. If so, there is no mametian payoff. Or perhaps John Cleese was meant to walk in to some scenes. It's Armando Ianucci without the sudden blunt interrption of the repetition.

It often felt like Östlund would runaway from his set up. We don't return to the initial chapter that gives the movie its name. The 2nd chapter promises to be a examination of chivalry and feminism in XXi centiry, but immediately dissolves in 20 minutes of repetitive dialogue and a dull couple arguing. The first half of the 3rd chapter has multiple failed bits on a luxury cruise, with the best set up being a shy rich man trying to seduce models, but Östlund doesn't know where to go with it. It culminates with a scene of staff feeling awkward about being ordered to leave posts and have forced fun, but is just dragged out and repetitive. The second half chapter, amid rough water, finds a potentially good set up of an American defending communism and a Russian defending capitalism, as they get drunk and quote philosophical/political phrases. It gets uncreative and unfocused by the 2nd minute, and spread out through a never ending montage of people vomiting and feces spilling down hallways. Thus what should be a clever satire of US and Russian leaders amid a crisis, is abandoned im favor of gross-out comedy out of a Razzie contender. It ends with a sequence intended to be funny and shocking, but it is so poorly executed that I can practically hear Östlund slapping his thigh in uncontrollable laughter in front of a sleeping audience.

Fans tell you that at this point, when it reaches the running time when most movies end, is the supposedly brilliant last chapter, for another 1 hour. But you can't say anything about it or it is a spoiler. Let's leave it at this: it is as good as a mundane derivative movie that you casually encounter on Netflix and watch out of boredom, or perhaps as you do chores. When 30 minutes have passed by, really only 5 or 7 minutes of movie have happened. Cinematically it is flat; at one point I hit pause and did not realize it. In one scene a fresh corpse is ridiculously pale yet very flexible and breathing. The ending is shruggable.

And as for a guiding framework holding together all of this, Östlund clearly is aiming to emulate Altman. However, Altman's sprawling multi-character, multi--short-story satires, good or lame, had some sort of anchor: a location and/or character. Based on this anchor, one can eventually sees how it all fits together. His emulators (e.g. P. Anderson) caught on. Ironically Östlund's boat movie has no such anchor. At most, there is an obvious skewering of both feudal-style kleptocratic capitalism and wealthy liberals; a message that the elite are useless and out of touch; and what happens when roles in power struggles are inversed (men/women, socioeconomic class) - everyone is equally bad! It is all half developed at best, with a lack of attention and neglected characters.

Even an Östlund detractor can point to some original bits with scathing social commentary in his previous two films. But in "Triangle of Sadness" it is not the case. Nothing on display is remotely original. Nothing is philosophical. Social observations are obvious, written at the level of a child in the concrete operational stage, fresh off of a Youtube binge. Intellectually it is a Fellini movie and a Lina Wertmuller movie spliced together and remade into a Farelly Brothers comedy, written by ChatGPT, with re-writes by Jason Friedberg and Aron Seltzer, edited by a later years Godard. There's very little style. More nauseating than the prolonged scene of people uncreatively vomiting, is the recurrent bit where they make fun of a woman with neurological linguistic difficulties during prolonged recovery from a stroke.

This film will only redeem itself in my obviously inferior palate of cinrmatic taste if Öslund one day reveals that this was a prank on Cannes audiences and certain voters at the AMPAS.

Candyman (2021)

Good imagery and score. Inconsistent storytelling.

[6/10 · 28 August 2022]

Nia DaCosta/Jordan Peele's "Candyman" sequel ("Candymen" might have been better title) breathes new life into the 30 year franchise by finding a new angle to the story. It keeps the same type of classy direction of Bernard Rose and Bill Condon of the first two films, while tackling themes of gentrification, police britality, and artists' mindless appropriation of violent tragedies. It links to the first film, while incorporating mythogy of the second film.

This movie is best appreciated at night with the lights off, and with headphones or a good sound system. John Guleserian's cinematography is great, the narrative shadow puppets were cool, and Lichens' score is consistently disturbing, while incorporating Glass' score of the original.

The screenplay however is uneven. The conversation of gentrification is intelligent amd balanced. So is the coverage of artists being insensitive and uncaring about the victims of the violence they depict, while focusing instead on their own fame. But the police brutality story is uneven, and some references to recent events ("Say his name") feel tacked on. The events depicted do match real life stories and can elicit empathy and rally against injustice. While Chicago police do disproportionately intervene African-Americans, and fheir is a history of brutality, an all-white modern day large Chicago police squad does not correspond with reality.

I dismiss others' complaints that 'all the victims are white'. No, not all are, and it is similar to the victim make-up of all the other "Candyman" movies: mostly white teen girls and white intellectual snobs, with the non-supernatural violence done by modern-day African-Americans against others, and in flashbacks, by racist whites. I will agree that the kill scenes themselves are inconsistently executed.

The bigger issue is that the story itself feels rewritten by people who did not agree on what was going on, and it falls apart in the last 20 minutes. The journey of Anthony's character makes no sense, nor does that of Billy, his guide into Candyman mythology. His girlfriend Brianna, the wealthy art exhibitor, has a distrubing backstory revelead halfway that is never developed. Mutliple variations of the Candyman are described, but only a couple are shown. If there was a succession and another variant took over 45 years ago, then why do we instead have the original in the previous films? Shouln't it had been the next one? At times they keep the original concept of Candyman as an urban legend of an atrocity that should not be mocked within ita community nor trivialized by outsiders, but then it is switched to a vigilante dishing out justice. The rules as to what happens when the name is called out are quite variable.

The acting is variable. The great Tony Todd is barely in the film. The child actors are good. Most of the snobby supporting cast overacts. Yaya Abdul Mateen II continues his streak of mixing in great acting with forced, overly conscious acting. Teyonah Parris does well with what they give her, and Colman Domingo is fine. Vanessa A. Williams steals the scene in which she is in.

Halloween Kills (2021)

Michael turns in Jason/John Wick hybrid in a fanfic black comedy murderama about survivor guilt

[5/10 · 3 August 2022]

The first sign that a "Halloween" installment is headed in the wrong direction is when Michael Myers is turning into a Jason Vorhees ripoff, rather than The Shape. Add to that cheesy humor and bad acting, and you can confirm that the creative team misunderstood the first movie.

I had my misgivings about Green's reboot, and thus was pleasantly surprised with the first 25 minutes of "Halloween Kills", which faithfully recreates the style and mood of the original, and the segways into an interesting tale of the larger impact of a homicide on a small community. Survivor guilt takes front and center, and there is a gentle re-introduction of old characters.

Unfortunately, we shift back to Michael Myers fighting a large group of people, in which he: 1) is suddenly taller. 2) exageratedly unstoppable, strong, and unharmable. 3) Able to pull off fight moves out of John Wick or Jason Bourne, including wushu moves to make characters hurt themselves with their own weapons. 4) they all attack individually and make poor choices.

And then the movie turns into: -a killfest, where Michael kills overacted random characters who either seek him out or don't have the sense to easily run out (or can't outrun a walking man), using various ordinary objects to bludgeon them in bloody detail, or again using action movies fighting skills, with ridiculous strength. These become suspense-free as there is 2% probability of anyone surviving, and Michael is actually there in the shadows almost 100% of the time. And it doesn't help that most new characters engage in badly acted humor. Busta Rhymes seemed like Denzel Washington in comparison.

-A recreation of sorts of "Halloween II", with a homage to "Halloween III" and plot elements of "Halloween IV". Vigilantism becomes a main point of the movie, but it is unfocused.

-A screenplay that feels like a copy of numerous fanfic that were posted 25 years ago on "Haddonfield Online" and other fan websites, where side characters appear to educate new characters about what ahppened before, then state that they are traumatized and want revenge - but are not fleshed out.

Green then takes the series' driving, creepy explanation as to why Michael Myers is able to things that he shouldn't - and stretches it past the limit of credibility or ability to suspend disbelief. The stalking, silent, quite often not-there, selectively killing The Shape becomes a very present, non-selective, and very unstoppable killing machine. I almost expected him to eventually have his head chopped off only to have him then carry it like the Headless Horseman.

It was a jump when the sequels took the 5 victims of the first "Halloween" and progressively added 5 more. It was tolerable at first, but after the 5th and 6th installments were at about 20, it felt like "Friday the 13th". "H20" smartly dialed it back down to about 8. But in the past 15 years it has gone up again, distractingly so. This installment has close to 40 victims. Why? I felt sorry for the characters, despite their spoofable mistakes, rather than horrified or shocked. What is the point of this incessant death parade? Where is the style and atmosphere?

Drive My Car (2021)

Mostly exposition in the dark and/or static long takes

[6/10 · 26 March 2022]

"I like your plays... you capturr the mundane things thst others leave out". So says a character to the theater director, and obviously telling the audience why "Drive My Car" is directed as it is: long shots of people doing extremely ordinary things in unremarkable settings. Or they are sitting in the dark, staring at the camera while engaing in monologues. Add to it a film quality and soundtrack straight out of 1985, with a 90s car.

I can understand the allure for some of this film: its dialogue is occasionally interesting and, once the story actually starts, you want to see where it goes. It interrupts the expostion with characters putting on a multilingual play that is meant to evoke what is going on: characters struggling to communicate with each other about loss. Otherwise it is a travelogue, which is interesting the first few images, then repetivie per location.

It is also unusually structured: a 40 minute prologue, oddly told. The next 2 hours 20 minutes will explain what happened.

Nightmare Alley (2021)

Stylish noir revival

[7/10 · 23 March 2022]

Great performances, camerawork, and production design. I am still digesting my thoughts on the story.

The previous adaptation of "Nightmare Alley" was released 75 years ago, at a time when film noir accounted for 20%-30% of all major movie releases. Nowadays some elements survice in cheap thrillers or in forced, dull revivals. Del Toro instead approaches this from the perspective that goes better with him: exploring further the curiosities of the carnival. He gets to indulge in the usual oddities associated with his films and personal memorabilia collection. He evokes wonder, awe, and terror, and his lead character gets a sympathetic, rundown older mentor.

But this accounts for a third of the movie. After getting the audience hooked on this, while slyly introducing the thematic arc, Del Toro uses the rest of the film to try his hand at something different: a standard film noir, with an exploration on mentalism vs psychotherapy, mind games, manipulation, double crosses, and people dealing with pain in dysfunctional ways. There are no children, no monsters.

There is nothing for me to criticize of the rest of the story; it was just hard to enjoyx due to the bleakness. I saw where the eventual ending was headed since Cooper's interactions at the carnival early on. The journey of the character was common in the early XX century: many men had their ups and downs between the roaring 20s, the World Wars, the Dust Bowl, and the Great Depression. People still experience such highs and absolute lows, but in less visually obvious ways; it is easier to hide. It is something to reflect on: fhe carnivals are not going on at present, but this story is still happening today.

Thematically, this is a good companion to this year's lighter "The Eyes of Tammy Faye".

Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022)

Suspense subsitute by dozens of kills

[5/10 · 19 February 2022]

This new entry tries a bit but misunderstands what works about the original and disappoints by following the latest "Halloween" formula: bring back a main character, skip sequels, and put in dozens of kills performed by a 70 year old. The kills start 20 minutes in and don't stop for 1 hour. It is too much, with too many dumb decisions, excessive requirement of suspension of belief, qnd Leatherface acting more like Jason.

I'm a fan of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and even had a chance to meet Tobe Hooper and hear from him what went into the original. There was a build up of suspense created by the side characters, strange house, and a few shocking kils. The 3rd one (with Viggo Mortensen!) ratched up the chainsaw action and kills, but rather kept the formula. The wonderfully weird 4th one went back to the black comedy and tension by creepy side characters (Matthew McConaughey!), but the low budget showed, and people were disappointed with the lack of chainsaw kills. Then the prequels came, keeping the formula but making the gore and repulsion far stronger. The odd long-delayed 4th sequel with Alessandra Daddario went all over the place with mixed results.

Here the formula is tossed after a few minutes, ,with no suspense, a focus on spoofing gentrification and Gen Z/later Milennial culture. There are some good shots, one interesting exchange of dialogue (about surviving school shootings), and not much more. It's all kill, kill .kill, kill, all shot too cleanly.

Luke Cage: The Basement (2018) Season 2, Episode 6

So weak it took me 4 years to watch all the way

[5/10 · 13 February 2022]

This episode has about 10-15 minutes of good material, and in between very slow scenes with repetitive, cliched dialogue, with over-the-top acting, reminding me of a weak BET soap opera. The fight scenes were poor, save for some portions of the final fight. The music score is terrible. I fell asleep or got bored so many times that Netflix kept on skipping it for me. Low point of "Luke Cage".

The Lost Daughter (2021)

Antonioni-style riff on "The Hours", Ozon, "We Need to Talk About Kevin" and more

[6/10 · 12 January 2022]

Edited as a thriller and promoted as such, "The Lost Daughter" is another movie on post-partum depression in art-oriented women. It is engaging when acting as what may be a mystery movie, and it is told in a way to make you question if many of the elements are in the protagonist's mind, and the story is different. Unfortunately that is disrupted by uneven pacing, with the story padded out by unlikely elements, characters, and arthouse cliches - from the very beginning. Ever saw the movie about a professor vacationing in the Mediterranean? The inconsiderate husband who won't allow her to blossom in her career? The more attractive younger woman being promiscuous? The cabana boy? The child who gos.from understandable child behavior to distubring behavior for no reason? These subplots are developed inconsistently. The movies' cebtral.theme is underscored by very frequent noises of a young girl crying.

The mystery (are these metaphors or hallucinations?) go from engaging to repetitive. Then the back story becomes predictable, and no one is likable or new. Olivia Colman channels Charlotte Rampling, Judi Dench, and many french actresses, without adding much.

I was expecting something more stylish with the accolades given to Maggie Gyllenhaal, but was disappointed with an almost generic art film. Postmodernism has convinced some critics that topic, and intention are above execution. I do not sharre the view. If covering a topic that needs to be discussed more, give it a different angle than what I have seen in better movies.

Dune (2021)

Potential marred by bad lighting and pacing

[6/10 · 24 October 2021]

The latest adaptation of the first 40% of Frank Herbert's novel promised to be more faithful tham prior adaptations, while adding great visuals from Villeneuve. Unfortunately, it only adapted a few more details, offered no visual innovation, was unnecessarily slow and repetitive, and hid two thirds of the movie in very low lighting.

For reference: -I am a fan of the Lynch version.

-I have read Herbert's novel and enjoyed it.

-I am sonfamiliar with Herbert's opinion on the prior adaptation, which was more supportive than that of his fans, who often complained of.omission of details that existed only in their imagination.

-I thought the Sci-Fi channel miniseries from 2001 was fair but not gripping.

-I have enjoyed most of Villeneuve's work, especially "Arrival".

Strengths: -When you get to see the cinematography, there are some very good visuals, about 20 of which could be framed.. Sangren takes over for Deakins but imitates him closely.

-The effects are seamless.

-The supporting cast is interesting, stand out from each other, and quite good.

-A few more details are captured about Dr Kynes and the ecology of Dune, even though much of it was still left out.

-Hans Zimmer 'wailing' score works at times, before it becomes awkwardly overused.

-Enough interesting dialogue is kept.

Weaknesses: -Most of the movie is shot in unnecessarily dark rooms, or outside at night, or at shadows near sunset, or against the brightest sun. Thus, you clearly see very little of what is on the screen. Some characters' faces are barely seen in their entire presence in the movie. It also ruins scenes like the 'jom gabbar' test or the trap of the floating needle in Paul's room.

-The first 40 minutes consist too heavily of whispering.

-The same shots of dreams and visions are shown over, and over, and over.

-Chalamet acts okay with his oral delivery, but his facial expression is the same mopey one throughout. His physique is credible as an adolescent, but not as a warrior.

-Baron Harkonen is barely featured.

-For a movie that was heavily hyped around what Villeneuve was imagining, I was let down by seeing visuals that were just a mix of Lynch's original, the desert scenes of "Batman V Superman", the latest "Star Wars" trilogy, a sprinkle of Tarsem and "Avatar", your average Hollywood desert epic, and a few callbacks to Villeneuve's prior movies.

The ending and some of the vision scenes promise more interesting visuals in the second part. I hope it is so.

Break It All: The History of Rock in Latin America (2020)

As if History of US Rock focused on NY and LA

[7/10 · 20 January 2021]

This is a good initial overview, but misses too many scenes. The focus, as usual, is on Argentine and Mexican musicians, with an occasional nod to other countries. At times it is insightful, knowledgeable, and fair; they cover acts that were hits across the continent; and musicians that were clear innovators or influencers. Those parts were the best. They also cover the general history of Hispanic America, and many items that were relatable across countries. And they provide insights as to why rock bands from some countries got more exposure than their contemporaries from other countries; certain producers and etc.

But when they talk about generic bands that were not hits outside of their country (and misportrayed as 'everyone' was listening to them locally), it becomes annoying. Why not focus on acts from other countries that were more enduring in those cultures?

I wish they do a 2nd season or a follow-up series, and cover Brazil; Chicano rock; the ska rock, punk, pop rock, and political rock of Peru, Chile, and Central America; metal, post-rock, jazz rock, as well as the class division that created new musical genres (e.g. psychedelic rock fused with huayno becomes the super-popular andean chicha).

Tenet (2020)

The mystery solved: it's simply very derivative.

[6/10 · 1 January 2021]

"Tenet" = "Mission Impossible" + "The Night Manager" + 007 (e.g. "Thunderball") + "Primer" + "Dr Strange" + "Call of Duty" + "Bill & Ted".

That's all there is to the mystery. I am a Nolan fan, but not a devout fanboy. I don't mind derivative movies as long as the copycat nature doesn't distract me, and there's something new added. Nolan's usually original or provides a new spin on well-worm territory. Nolan-wise, this comes closest to "Interstellar": many copied elements, with high-level physics added, and dialogue often obscured by the soundtrack and mixing. However, at least that had some intriguing visuals and innovative scenarios. "Tenet" offers nome of that. Additionally, it lacks the heart at the center of Nolan's movies that take the tales to another level: he makes us care for the characters and their internal struggles. "Tenet" doesn't bother with that; it's all plot/action.

The first 90 minutes are a Cruise-era M:I movie, with Nolan trying to pull off action scenes akin to "The Dark Knight" and "Inception", but not as interesting. A villain and his wife are lifted straight out of "The Night Manager", and our hero approaches the situation like a classic James Bond. Occasionally things reverse, as in the trailer, but rarely in an impressive way.

Then the movie switches to more typical cerebral Nolan time-twiting territory. Characters are allowed to grow a bit. They carry out concepts from "Primer" but in a more entertaining way. It becomes more interesting, but loses itself with unconvincing explanations for the motivations of the villains. They lift entire dialogue from "Timecop" and the latest MCU movies.

The final act centers around a raid that is supposed to impress us with time mixes, remiscent of the final act of "Dr Strange", but just feels like watching someone play "Call of Duty" or a similar game. And the characters engage in time-travelling one-upmanship straight out of "Bill & Ted" movies, but serious.

I am flabbergasted why Mr Nolan insisted on this being seen in theaters in the widest screen possible. Hoyte van Hoytema's cinematographic talents are underused.

Here's hopong a return to better Nolan.

Ip Man 4: The Finale (2019)

Ip Man vs the Marine Drill Sgt Who Rules Small Town of San Francisco

[5/10 · 29 July 2020]

A decrease in quality from other "Ip Man" films. Let's start with the action: there's about 3 or 4 good fight scenes, and the match with Scott Adkins delivers. The rest are either less creative or repetitive, or they have good potential but are more obviously staged: actors dive or reel before the hit, and the movements more obviously involve wires. Wires are normal, but it's inconsistently used, with sudden jerks and gravity defiance after very mild contact in otherwise realistic brutal fights. The great Donnie Yen doesn't try as hard in these scenes.

But the rest is a distraction, and a victim of the latest trend in Chinese blockbusters to focus on nationalism and cultural superiority, as seen most blatantly in "Wolf Warrior 2" and less so in "The Wandering Earth": depiction of white americans and europeans are evil and incompetent, japanese culture as bad, black people as nice but goofy and reliant on chinese heroes, and other asians and latinos are non-existent. Three points of clarificarion: -It's a tradition of chinese martial arts movies to show the hero as fighting off an invading culture or empire. It made sense when the "Ip Man" movies were set in China. But this one is set in the USA. -This movie is set in either the 60s or 70s (too many anachronisms and inconsistencies), and an examination of the racism againat the chinese during the height of the Civil Rights movement is valid. They start off on the right foot, in the first half of the movie. -And yes, it's payback for how the US action blockbusters depicted American heroes in foreign cultures, especially in the 1980s and early 90s, and there's still some of that going on. At least those usually had a couple of sympathetic characters in the foreign culture., and the hero sometimes has to learn from the other culture to win. This has none of that.

Ostensibly, the movie examines San Francisco Chinatown's struggles with integrating in USA culture, and how that drives animosity of both cultures to Bruce Lee. But they cannot keep their focus. The storylines driving the movie are Ip Man's relationship with his son, his failing health, Bruce Lee's relationship to Chinatown, and Ip Man's protection of a Chinese-American teenager.

Now on to the silliness: San Francisco is depicted as a small town, where a police officer is the 2nd most powerful person, holding the additional role as Head of Immigration, and he's quite wealthy. The most powerful person is a Marine drill sergeant, who runs the town as he pleases, and despises chinese (and possibly all asians) yet has an unhealthy obsession with karate. Most of the action is set in a small portion of Chinatown, a preppy school with gangs, a gymnasium that hosts karate tournaments, and the Marine boot camp. There's an occasional glimpse to wealthy suburbs. The drill sargeant and his henchman run amok and Bruce Lee runs amok, but never at the same place and time.

These faults could either be accepted as an tongue-in-cheek B-movie, or as part of a operatic play, and be ignored. After all, it takes serious liberties with the life of Ip Man and one of his sons, Ip Ching, and the whole series was about depicting his legend. However, "Ip Man 4" often tries hard to be taken seriously and as a realistic historical movie.

Midsommar (2019)

Aster redoes more old hits to explore more trauma

[6/10 · 17 December 2019]

This was advertised as A24 does "The Wicker Man". I found "The Wicker Man" (original, '72) laughable other than the end, and I have mixed feelings about "Hereditary" and most A24 horror. Still, as a horror fan, I'm interested in seeing a new stylish director find his/her own brand. If he continues the same pattern, with "Hereditary" and "Midsommar", Ari Aster's brand consists of the following: -First half of the movie: drama about coping with grief from multiple family loss. -Second half: revisit past horror movies as someone gets drawn into a grisly cult sacrifice. Featuring: -interesting cinematography -sets that imitate dollhouses -repulsive images -severe bloody trauma to heads -mutilated corpses used as ritual dolls. -erie music -sketches and drawings telling you exactly what is going to happen -harm by friendly-looking people who trick the protagonists -many naked out of shape older people -books about mysticism -deformed/unusual looking people -burning men -women in emotional agony -men struggling to show emotions -slow pace, interrupted by disturbing imagery

With both movies, I applaud the technical skill, but I am disappointed in the story resolution, and overall left more disgusted than horrified. Any sympathy I developed for the characters eventually wiltered away, as I questioned their decisions. Specifically with "Midsommar" much as I enjoyed some shots and appreciated the tension built up starting at midway through the film, I ended up feeling annoyed.

The Irishman (2019)

Scorcese revisiting prior movies to explore Final Impenitence/Contrition over Obstinacy

[7/10 · 4 December 2019]

As one watches "The Irishman" (apparently not Scorcese's preferred title) you are eventually hit with the same criticism that audiences had with "Casino" 24 years prior: this is fun and interesting, but feels an awful lot like a retread of Scorcese's prior DeNiro/Pesci modern mobster movies. So the question, especially in light of Scorcese's protracted rants about what is and isn't 'art' in films is: why bother doing a re-tread so familiar that if someone else did it, they would be accused of being Scorcese-like (e.g. "Blow", "Black Mass"), with the only apparent novelty of it being full of CGI typically used in movies he criticizes? It turns out that audiences have to wait almost 3 hours to get the answer: a new epilogue, which gives a Catholic closure that other Scorcese films lack.

As famous as they are for their violence and depiction of sleazy behavior, Scorcese's movies are centered around Catholic concepts. If you take out the rock documentaries and "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore", you have a couple of Paul Schraeder tales centered on wrath and envy; a tale of revenge and honesty; a tale of lust; three nightmares, one about lust and two about guilt; two tales of pride vs shame; 3 religious epics exploring virtue versus humanity; and a long series of criminal bromances which deal with Greed, Gluttony, Wrath, dishonesty, and jealousy. Four of these are directed in a signature dynamic style, which have influenced Tarantino and Danny Boyle, among others. "The Irishman" is a 5th addition, but the main focus of this bromance is Killing. Starting with 1 hour into the movie, characters are only introduced and defined by the way that they will die or mysteriously disappear.

Between killings and mobsters mouthing off about respect, Scorcese's Netflix opus is casually filled with Catholic rites, showing baptisms, weddings, funerals, and a banquet akin to a Confirmation ceremony. It is easy to miss until the last half hour, which more openly focuses much on last rites and Confession. The sin in this case is a mortal sin of Killing (spilling the blood of Adam, if you will), among others, and its lead character descends into purgatory. Scorcese has not found salvation for his criminals before. "Goodfellas" and "The Wolf of Wall Street" left off suggesting Obstinancy in Sin, "The Departed" suggested heavenly punishment for Mortal Sin without Final Impenitence, and "Raging Bull" suggests purgatory (originally defined as externally living in isolation) for its somewhat repentant character. Whereas "Shutter Island" suggested the acceptance of guilt, and most recently "Silence" had its main characters possibly finding a way out of Despair and Impugning the Known Truth. "The Irishman" wrestles with escaping Purgatory via trying to make ammends and build a legacy, but the movie suggests that only proper Confession will do. Perhaps most revealing that this is the part that Scorcese was most interested in doing, is that in this last part is that DeNiro finally seems more comfortable in showing his acting chops, and Rodrigo Santoro's cinematography occasionally makes an effort to give more stylish images, after 3 hours of mostly shots of the actors from the chest up at a 60 degree angle, employing a dull green palette. Unfortunately, it ends suggesting that the character will only tell you half of the truth, but in an anticlimactic way that might make you react 'that's it?'.

But three hours to get there is a bit much, more so when the narrative becomes unfocused and repetitive, and occasionally shots are added or scenes unnecessarily extended to pad out time - or so it feels. If it was to build on a feeling, it must have been hit/miss. It starts out strong, as Joe Pesci comes out of retirement but surprisingly plays the serene, fatherly criminal boss, and the maniacal greedy hothead role goes to someone else. Pesci is great, and bonds well with DeNiro, and this chemistry keeps the story going for about 40 minutes. When it feels like it is running out of energy, in comes the actor doing the 'Pesci role': Al Pacino as... Jimmy Hoffa? Pacino is a lot of fun at first, and easily steals the movie. Unlike Robert Blake and Jack Nicholson, he doesn't even try to look (other than a haircut), act, or sound like Hoffa. Replacing Hoffa's squinty eyes and Transatlantic accent is Al Pacino in full 1990s mode, with a wide-eyed surprised look and thick eyebrows that make him look like a Muppet, as he rants and raves. He gets away with it for the first hour, while we get an entertaining alternate tour of political history of the 1960s. Whether Pacino's performance was meant to be a commentary on 2010s politicians is up for debate. I am already used to Scorcese's casting of stars who do not look or sound like who they are supposed to be. Unfortunately, during the 2nd hour of this, Hoffacino's repeated insulting feels more like Triumph the Insult Dog, and, unless you are really a fan of mob movies where tacky characters go on and on and on about demanding respect from each other, it gets tiresome. Pacino hurls an insult that ends in "sucker" so often that it becomes drinking game fodder, and one might start rooting for him to make his celebrated disappearance.

The screenplay is at its best, as usual for Scorcese's kinetic crime flicks, when it goes through details explaining the modus operandi of the crimes, the slang, and behind-the-scenes details of known historical events. As engaging as most of the story is, the narrative itself has a couple of issues, the first one being structural. It starts off a character recalling an event (which eventually unfolds into the actual plot), and then goes further back in history, occasionally returning to the other later event. This is probably meant to reflect the way a person might tell a personal anecdote, and it works at first, but it gets a bit messy later when going back and forth between times, especially when it involves events where the narrator is not present. We are also left wondering: to whom is Frank telling his story? Are we the confessor? The other issue was an underdeveloped subplot regarding another mystery killing in the mob world for which the main character takes credit. The background is not well explained, and I had to stop and do some research to fully understand what was going on. There are some repetitive exchanges or unnecessarily prolonged scenes that could have been cut down to make room for at least 20 seconds worth of explaining the American Italian Anti-Defamation League, and another 10 more on Crazy Joe. There is a third element that has drawn some criticism from others, but I didn't mind: the daughter as mostly silent witness, serving as a form of conscience, and/or representation of ideals.

Finally, there's the visuals. Scorcese has been requesting that the movie be seen in a screen no smaller than 'a large iPad', without further explanation. Unfortunately, most of the visuals are quite standard or uninspired. Scorcese earns some credit for filming in authentic-looking locations, correctly capturing the houses and neighborhoods of eastern Pennsylvania. The 'wall paintings' are done quite effectively. There is the occasional varied camerawork, but it feels unnecessary: zooming in and out during court hearings; the camera spinning around inside a car to observe through the windows how Jimmy Hoffa is walking towards it; following a minor character down a hallway without good reason, then turning back down the hallway in a lame attempt to trick the audience that it's a continuous shot. Some crane shots of Hoffa in court and of Frank Sheeran walking into places work fine, but are not memorable. Then there are some visual homages to other directors: a couple of scenes (an assassination on steps off a plane; golfing) are done in the visual style of early 1990s Oliver Stone, whose political historical films of that era intersect narratively with this one. There's a key scene of Frank beating up someone in the street, clearly imitating Sonny beating up his brother-in-law in "The Godfather", except that it hits a clumsy point as DeNiro's physicality betrays him, and a character yells in pain when DeNiro fails to connect a kick. Which brings me to the main question: does the Anti-Aging work? Somewhat. Overall, the characters always look 10 years older than they are supposed to. The CGI is seamless if watched in a good quality large cell phone or a low resolution TV, but in a larger, new TV (e.g. 48 inch), the CGI looks off in the first 40 minutes. DeNiro's face looks strange; in what seems at an attempt to simultaneously de-age him and give him some of the real Frank's features, he looks vaguely Asian at times or eastern European. Then there's the color of his eyes, which feel inconsistent, and notably glow bright green in some scenes. There's some discussion whether this is an artistic decision, and marks emotional states or moral decisions of Frank, but I did not catch on to a consistent enough pattern; you can decide. Regardless, it was sometimes distracting. So no, this is not one of Scorcese's visual epics, like "Raging Bull", "Kundun", "Hugo" or "The Aviator". And sonically, it was Scorcese's standard collection of well-placed oldies.

In summary, "The Irishman" is a mostly entertaining tale, especially if you like his similar-themed/structured films. The pacing is uneven, and he could have trimmed down many repetitive scenes; this is the 2nd film in a row of his that I felt that he didn't know when to stop in the 2nd act. The final act is the notable difference from very familiar territory, and Pesci's different performance stands out as one of the year's best, in an otherwise fun but not very inspired retread.

Roma (2018)

Some stunning scenes, but 60s art homage is a step backward for Latin American cinema

[7/10 · 27 December 2018]

Alfonso Cuaron has been one of the most impressive visual directors of the past 20 years, in which there is a lot of detail going on in the background, so it's no surprise that he assembles some very stunningly done scenes in "Roma". Very mundane endless scenes suddenly become filled with much action in the background, with coordinated movements of extras that invoke the great epic cinema of past decades. There are probably 5 or 6 of these moments in "Roma", which make it applause-worthy. It gets bonus points from me for more realistically depicting Mexico, unlike the Mariachi, narcos, and 'fresa' spoiled drama queens typically seen in Mexican cinema and TV. It even shows non-white Mexicans and depicts more than one language. Unfortunately, there are many scenes that lead to very little or should have required much more editing, as Cuaron creates homages not only to his childhood, but also to Bergman, Fellini, Buñuel, and the New Wave, with great skill but mixed cinematic products. Well crafted haunting and satiric images are intertwined with never-ending images so dull that make you wonder why you are not staring outside your window instead of the screen.

The screenplay is another issue. The story is far too underdeveloped to sustain interest. At it's best,"Roma" touches on themes of women being abandoned by men to manage families on their own, the mixed relationships of a family with its servants, class divisions, and the dangers to which children were exposed more easily in another era. At it's worst, "Roma" mixes in every single cliche of Latin American art cinema, essentially: "let's analyze Latin society by showing scenes in the life of a family through the eyes of the [maid/children]." Maybe this was groundbreaking in the Spanish "Veneno Para Hadas", but for the longest time, it's been every other movie in Latin American cinema, which are mostly plotless, slow, dull affairs by misguided self-proclaimed disciples of Goddard. I'm thus disappointed, as Cuaron is part of the movement to make Latin cinema more dynamic and interesting. Given this movie's accolades, I fully expect more of this same sub-type dull Latin art cinema for the next decade.

The Maltese Falcon (1941)

Greenstreet and Lorre liven up non-stop Transatlantic exposition

[6/10 · 20 September 2018]

Film critics seem to easily forgive faults in their childhood classics, which they constantly point out in other films. Case in point is "The Maltese Falcon", essentially a play, in which Humphrey Bogart sneers and gives a monotone delivery in a Transatlantic accent (with the occasional New York thrown in) while engaging in almost non-stop exposition, alternating with his putting down everyone around him, apparently with authority even over the police. It's occasionally enlivened by exchanges with Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet, whom fortunately do not act in the bland generic manner of the most Hollywood actors of the 40s, and get the better lines of dialogue. There's also some brief but unbelievable fight scenes and romance scenes. The editing is uneven and sometimes clumsy, although it improves in the second half. The great John Huston alternates between amateurish direction (unnecessary zooms, awkwardly staged scenes, portrayal of women as weak) and some scenes with better flow, and the occasional interesting shot. The music is 40s standard, and the cinematography is rarely notable.

Mudbound (2017)

A good movie hidden within a larger rambling story

[7/10 · 9 December 2017]

"Mudbound" clearly aspires to be a cross of "Days of Heaven" and "Sounder" with a TV movie of a woman who has to endure harsh conditions in a historical setting. It has very little new to say or show. It goes through the motions, showing us a montage of clichéd scenes during the first half, as it goes between different characters and plot lines. Fortunately it is edited at a quick pace, and the characters are engaging enough, that it is watchable.

Then by 1 hr 10 minutes it feels like the writers or director realized that it would be best to settle on the two most interesting characters, and progressively ditches all of the rest (and their story lines), to focus on them. There we get a buddy movie of two WW2 veterans who bond together as they struggle in life after war: one dealing with PTSD with alcohol, and the other dealing with racism at home after fighting the Nazis and leaving a romance behind. This is a better, more satisfying, fresher tale, and engages more.

As much as I enjoyed watching Ronsell and Jamie's story, it all feels odd when the movie ends, as I wondered why I had to watch the first half of the movie. One family's tale has a conclusion, but I felt disconnected as the plot was so removed from them by then. The other family's tale is left not so much unresolved as flat out abandoned, despite their characters being the ones who started the story and dominate the first half of the movie. And the next-to-last scene has notable continuity errors with the opening scene, which depict the same event.

An aside note on the cinematography: I don't understand the accolades. There is one impressive shot of field workers at sunrise, and about two other pleasant but easy shots of sunsets. The rest is quite standard, using the same lighting and filters that are used in most historical dramas nowadays, being especially similar to that of "12 Years a Slave". Unfortunately, in an effort to be Mallick-like, the camera is quite often hand-held and moving around, but unlike Mallick, with no apparent reason, perspective, or art. Instead it at times feels jerkier than "The Blair Witch Project".

The Beguiled (2017)

Dull storytelling for the sake of imagery

[5/10 · 3 December 2017]

Sofia Coppola seems to have set out to do the opposite of her trademark first few movies, which were colorful, well paced, and found something cheerful amid sadness. Here she works with a slow pace, morose tone, unsaturated and dark cinematography, and weak storytelling, to no reward whatsoever. Yes, she assembles many interesting Southern Gothic images that look straight out of painting, but then overdoes it, with repetitive imagery. I understand it to be symobolic, as there is a brief break from this, into more light and colors, for about 5 minutes, when the characters explore romantic/sexual feelings, before returning to the same. But I've seen haunted house movies with more color. My eyes were literally craving color and light after watching this.

Not helping: the sound mixing was not that great, the accents were unstable, the soundtrack was not existent (save for a few pounding deep notes in one or two suspenseful sequences in the otherwise lifeless third act), there were too many lingering shots that seemed to be padding time, and when the plot swings into full gear, it is brief, has a couple of tense scenes, and then limps along to its conclusion. What should have been some sort of deep allegory for feminism or sexual repression, instead ends leaves you with a "huh" feeling.

The Salesman (2016)

An argentine melodrama in Farsi

[7/10 · 3 September 2017]

I applaud director Farhadi for making Iran more accessible to outsiders, focusing on modern urban issues, and making Tehran more internationally relatable. But I'm not a fan of his pacing or how he plays out the drama. I had low expectations as "A Separation" lost me due to the unrelenting yelling between its characters. "The Salesman" was more lively and allowed its characters to have more emotions. But two things ultimately distracted me: the first was the uneven pacing. The movie would pick up but then drag, and the worst part being the final act; just as the dialogue, drama, and suspense were at its best, and Farhadi has you feeling empathy for everyone, he does not know when to quit, and gives us almost 20 minutes of people crying.

The second one was: I realized that he was just making an Argentine film. If you've seen Argentine cinema, that you'll notice that, aside from the occasional dark comedy, they're mostly slow-paced melodrama about relationships between family members and the communities, where people go from being numb to an ultimate eruption of emotions. Even their thrillers play out this way. Shahab Hosseini looked and acted like Ricardo Darin, down to the body language and linguistic pacing. Thus, I felt like I had seen this movie a dozen times before.

It is no surprise to me that Farhadi's next film is set in Argentina and involves Darin.

Silence (I) (2016)

Old-school religious epic turned torture porn

[6/10 · 30 July 2017]

It's hard to rate "Silence" because it's one of those movies that has a lot of good going for it, but ultimately loses it's way, and my appreciation of it drops the more I think about it. My original rating was "8". "Silence" ultimately does not work as Scorsese's flaws get the best of him.

This is a movie about Catholicism, perhaps made for Catholics. It shows that this production had it's inception in late 1980s, as it is similar to the "priests travel to a foreign land and suffer" epics of the era, from "The Mission" to "Black Robe", the latter which it most resembles in pace and visual style. Many of the religious practices and references (what is a Jesuit? Why are they talking in Latin?) will be lost on non-Catholic audiences. However, most with some understanding of European history will appreciate that this is the opposite of a Spanish Inquisition movie: the Catholic priests are the ones persecuted and tortured by an Inquisitor who tries to get them to denounce their faith. I grew up very Catholic, and I've come to appreciate different main types of practicing devout Catholics: 1) those who only focus on Jesus suffering for others' sin, the need to repent, the need to suffer, and yelling that everyone else is a sinner; 2) the ritualistic, who are focused on repetitive prayers, rituals, statues, and rosaries (e.g. Marianists); 3) the institutional crowd, who worship the Church itself, with focus on Roman Empire culture and social conservatism as a way of maintaining feudalistic/oligarchic societies (e.g. Opus Dei and Benedict XVI's crowd); 4) those who focus on trying to carry out good deeds, love, build communities, and transcend the material (e.g. Franciscans, Carmelites, and Jesuits). In "Silence", Scorsese tries to explore all of these aspects of Catholicism to some degree or another, but seems to settle on mostly the first two.

Thus after an intriguing first hour, with great cinematography, and an interesting story of missionaries overcoming their needs and doubts to try to give hope to those who live wretched lives (and how much religion properly translates), and those who risk their life for their faith, we are treated to a visually and aurally unpleasant second hour. This hour is a repetitive depiction of people being tortured and killed, while they either follow their own rituals, or follow a Japanese ritual to renounce their faith. In fact, it mostly consists of a Shogun with an improbably ugly, nasal voice and his associates yelling "Trample!" at poor, suffering Japanese peasants, who cry and say "I don't want to trample!" to Andrew Garfield's priest, after which we see feet step on a bronze plaque with a religious image, and then see the peasants are whacked half the time anyway, while a priest cringes. At times there's interesting dialogue on theology, cross-cultural misunderstandings, Western vs. Eastern philosophy, the main character's arrogance, symbols vs actions in Christian faith, and facing the consequences of Catholic beliefs (pardoning of sins, going to Heaven, martyrdom) when things go sour. At it's thematically best, "Silence" explores it's title by addressing the flip side of the saying "There's no atheists in foxholes": what if you are stuck a long time suffering in the foxhole, seeing people die around you, and God doesn't answer your prayers? And here's where Scorsese's flaws as a filmmaker ruin this movie. Scorsese has always been less of an actual story teller, and prefers to show us intertwined experiences of a character, often one who is loyal to an institution or social group, with their fall from grace due to sin (pride, wrath, paranoid distrust, or lust and general hedonism). Scorsese tends to make those falls be extra-long, with repetitive scenes. We often tend to allow it to pass, as those scenes can be entertaining and dynamic, leading to the film eventually wrapping up with some sort of quick glimpse into the character's life to come. But in "Silence" the repetitive scenes are unpleasant and torturous, and ultimately become boring. Then what should be a 3-5 minute final scene instead becomes 20-30 minutes long, with a new narrator, and some pointless long shots that make you wonder if Thelma Schoonmaker gave up and walked out of the editing room. What starts as an open-minded glance into Japanese culture turns into an almost villainous depiction of it. And while thematically it goes from carefully exploring Jesuit concepts, from the vows of obedience and poverty, to a heavy exploration of the concept of Casuistry, ultimately there's a missed opportunity to explore the Jesuit concept of contemplation (detachment and "finding God in all things"), as the movie goes too far in exploring the feeling of spiritual abandonment, with an unconvincing return to spirituality.

Although the repetitive scenes are what drags down what sounds like a much better movie, they were not the only flaw. Another distracting factor is the main characters themselves. They are Portuguese priests, but the only one who looks vaguely Lusitanian is Adam Driver. Driver and Garfield start out with varying accents, before eventually giving up altogether. Liam Neeson doesn't even try, and speaks in his Liam Neeson voice, although I'm able to forgive him, as he's come to occupy that spot previously reserved for Sean Connery ("he's playing a Spaniard named Ramirez, but he speaks like Sean Connery. Who cares, he sounds cool!"). I get that this was not the original cast, who could have passed more like Portuguese. However, we have to deal with whom wound up on screen. These Portuguese are stranger as they are speaking in English, as are some of the Japanese. What's the point of making everything else look and sound authentic, if you are going to do that big change? In the end the biggest question Scorsese left me with was: did he simply make this flop to be done and get over with it, and avoid further legal battles?

Logan (2017)

More of the same while trying to do an Eastwood flick

[7/10 · 9 July 2017]

James Mangold and Hugh Jackman teamed up to make a different Wolverine movie: more serious, inspired by westerns, in which our hero has to deal with mortality and regret, while being on the lam with a girl. That movie was called "The Wolverine". For "Logan" they decided to do something bold and different by... doing exactly the same, while adding nothing to Wolverine's story, except an ending. Okay, this time the girl is a child with special powers (you know from the trailer and the DVD jacket that she is connected to Wolverine; I won't spoil details), which makes the plot go exactly in the same beats as as every adult-with-child-on-the-lam flick, from "Escape to Witch Mountain" and "Firestarter" to "Midnight Special". The villains in their vans and helicopters behave like all those on-the-lam villains who somehow always arrive quickly to wherever the protagonists are, even at times when there's no plausible reason. Innocent people are befriended on the way, and pay a price.

But yes, it is well shot, with well directed action, some style, and good performances. Back in the 80s, "X-Men" fans were campaigning for a movie to be made, with Clint Eastwood a fan favorite choice as Wolverine. Thus it is perhaps no surprise that style-wise and plot-wise, "Logan" behaves like if Clint Eastwood had made it, taking inspiration from multiple Eastwood flicks: "Pale Rider", "Unforgiven", "A Perfect World", and even small shades of "Gran Torino" and "Million Dollar Baby". It also references some classic anti-Westerns of the 1950s, going as far as including a "Shane" homage. All of this it pulls off well, but you do feel like you've seen this too many times before.

"Logan" also pretends to be a "Mad Max"-like dystopian movie, but then it turns out that they're just in the US-Mexico border, and other than the lack of new mutants, the world looks exactly like the 2010s, despite it being 2029 or so. In fact, there's been no change to every day technology, including cars, cell phones and TVs. Only the villains seem to possess advanced technology, in the shape of cybernetic arms and advanced cloning abilities. The villains (The Reavers) are unimpressive, with the most powerful one being a metaphor of Wolverine's aging issues. And no, Nathaniel Essex is not in this movie, despite how it was promoted. Boyd Holbrook plays Pierce as a cunning dangerous redneck, somewhat of a cross between Gary Oldman and Woody Harrelson, but less strong.

The story does not do us any service. Aside from the standard plot themes for this sub-genre of 'grumpy dying hero reluctantly takes on a child and goes on the lam', there's little added to the story. We learn of a grim fate of a half-dozen unnamed X-Men, but have no clue what happened to the dozens of other characters. We are left wondering how Wolverine suddenly started aging rapidly, with no good explanation given, or to how/when he retreated to a menial existence. We also wonder how Professor X turned into a babbling fool, other than dementia at age 90. Jackman and Stewart turn in great performances, even if Stewart's character bares only little resemblance to his prior incarnations. Perhaps you can justify it with how dementia changes some great people.

What is different from the usual "X-Men" movies is the violent gore and the cursing. It shocks at first, then feels repetitive/gratuitous or over-the-top. I will say that the fight scenes are more effective, and overall in "Logan" the violence straddles a thin line between action and terror.

Saving the film overall is the good chemistry between the leads, the acting, and the fact that you are watching Wolverine in action on the big screen.

Iron Fist (2017–2018)

Average Netflix 'Defenders' show

[7/10 · 21 March 2017]

I usually don't review TV shows, but felt compelled to write after the unfair poor reviews, and the alt-right somehow stepping in. I've watched the same amount of episodes that the critics claim to have watched, and I think they're lying; most of them clearly watched the first and maybe the second, and then wrote a trendy review. It's pretty much on par with the other Netflix Marvel shows, with the same weaknesses and strengths. The catch is that the first couple of episodes feel more like a CW show, due to different characters and the way it introduces our hero.

Rather than introducing yet another cynical, jaded hero, which would have made this hard to distinguish from "Daredevil", we are given a clueless, regressed man-child, with a heart of gold and a hipster look. He has not matured above age 12 or so, and still behaves like a devout monk. He reminds me of some small-town friends when they traveled overseas as part of a church mission; the beat of the big cities and the squalor of the slums was too much for them. Like all of the other Netflix Marvel series, the challenge of the hero is not much about fighting the super-powered villain of the week, but exploring a super-powerful person dealing with real-life circle of societal powers, where they are weak outsiders. It is humorous and endearing to see him be out of his league, despite all of his powers. Perhaps critics preferred another Jeaneane Garrofalo clone like Jessica Jones.

Addressing the other criticisms:

-The pacing: yes, it starts somewhat slow, and builds up the hero and villains (which are not black & white), putting the hero in a vulnerable position, and not revealing much of his powers. It goes into where you would want it to by the end of episode 3, and then dives into Daredevil's world after that. This is an odd criticism, as "Luke Cage" had the same pacing and build up in the first 3 episodes, and "Daredevil" also took it slow in the first few episodes. "Jessica Jones" had an extremely uneven pacing, with the story stopping-and-starting after often detouring to unlikable secondary characters.

-That it's racist whitewashing: they cast a white young man to play a white young man. I would fully support this criticism if Finn Jones would have been cast as Shang-Chi, Master of Kung Fu, but it's not the case. Quite frankly, I don't care what race Danny Rand would have been, as he is not a very iconic character, although some choices would have involved significant re-writing of the plot and a very different character. To say that he could have only been an eastern Asian plays into the stereotype that all Asians are good at martial arts. It also makes another racist statement: that no one else is good at martial arts, except for those who invented it. That's like saying that the lead in "Creed" should have been an Iraqi or a Greek. It also ignores that many champions of martial arts are not eastern Asians. For example: Connor McGregor is the off/on MMA champion, and it's usually South Americans who challenge him. The Koreans obtained most of the medals in Tae Kwon Do and the Japanese in judo at the latest Olympics, but many other medalists were European and Irani. The various kumite karate world champions vary in race and nationality; they're not all Japanese or even eastern Asian. And as for a white hero being very skilled at martial arts and taking on ninjas: why wasn't this a criticism of "Batman Begins" and "Daredevil"? Also making this claim silly: Rand's character was trained by mandarin-speaking monks from another dimension. It's unclear whom else they were training, and who earned the mantle of Iron Fist before him; he just happened to earn it then, possibly fulfilling the prophecy. Finally, while everyone was not watching the show and complaining of this, they missed fight scenes in this show involving an Asian-American woman taking down big white guys.

-The quality of the fight scenes: this seems to vary per who directed the episode. The first couple of episodes essentially have Finn Jones doing slow movements, which are then sped up. He combines some basic wushu with judo and parkour. It improves later, when directors with experience from the other Netflix Marvel shows take over. Finn's kicks and movements are more impressive, and there's better use of editing and doubles to hide his weaknesses. It's not on par with "Daredevil", but this show has the disadvantage of not having its hero in a costume, to better disguise skilled stuntmen. It's still miles better than the fighting in "Jessica Jones", and Luke Cage's habit of just repeatedly tossing people. The scenes involving Collen Wing are much better, with better fight scenes and opponents who put more effort.

-It's topically irrelevant to the current, real world: after the first few episodes, we get into big pharma overpricing medications; the opioid epidemic and the role of big pharma in it; hipster's clashes with realities when they take on big corporations or become overnight CEOs themselves; human trafficking; corporate images in the viral era; morally ambiguous situations in lawsuits against big corporations. If this is not relevant, then the critics need to go out for a walk.

I still prefer "Daredevil", but this so far is an engaging addition to the series. Make up your mind.