VVMini Reviews

The Woman in the Window (2021)

Amy Adams carries this surprisingly risky movie.

[8/10 · 31 May 2021]

With all the negativity surrounding the movie, I was surprised by how much I liked The Woman in the Window. I read the book when it came out a few years back, so I was ready for all the stretching of my disbelief that was to come. Though I did forgot quite a bit of what happened so a few things were new to me.

Since the bulk of the story was known to me, it gave me more time to appreciate the film making behind it. I really enjoyed the bizarre directions Joe Wright sometimes took the film in, from weird dreamlike sequences to almost breaking the fourth wall at times. It was a very risky approach to a movie that could have been played pretty safe, and I can appreciate that.

But the real star of the movie was Amy Adams, who gave another exceptional performance. Completely vulnerable, she makes the sense of her losing her mind almost palpable. I was completely invested in her character, and she singlehandedly lifted this movie up for me. The same cannot be said of Gary Oldman, who was hamming it up so much that he was pretty much in an entirely different movie. I'm gonna chalk that one up to a risky approach that did not pay off. Or maybe it would have been riskier to have Oldman *not* ham it up, who knows.

Anyway, it's far from a perfect movie, and the ending was a bit sudden and out of the blue, but I thoroughly enjoyed myself. It's one of those times when low expectations can actually be beneficial.

Army of the Dead (2021)

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

[2/10 · 31 May 2021]

I know that's a phrase that gets thrown around a lot, but in this case you can check my ratings history to see that it's true, having rated only around a dozen or so movies a 2 or lower. One of them being another Zach Snyder movie (Justice League), while Batman v Superman and Man of Steel didn't fare much better. I guess it's fair to say Snyder ain't exactly my favourite director, though not because I want to. Watchmen is one of my all time favourite movies, and I even somewhat liked Sucker Punch for the ridiculousness that it is. I want to like his movies, but increasingly I end up blatingly hating them. So what makes Army of the Dead so especially repugnant for me?

First and foremost, it's the terrible screenplay. The story itself is just so poor, filled with plot holes and conveniences that make me roll my eyes way too much. I don't expect Oscar worthy level of writing from a zombie heist film, but basic competence is the least I ask for. When your very first scene consists entirely of people doing the dumbest things possible, you know you're in for a wobbly ride.

It feels like the script has not been proof read and the very first draft has been used. This idea is further supported by the fact that the movie is at least 45 minutes too long, classic case of the writer not wanting to kill his darlings. Which is what happens when you let your director also write the movie.

Then there are the horrible characters that were all awful and desperately unlikeable. They are all incredibly one-dimensional, with the possible exception of Dave Bautista's character who is at least given some sort of backstory. The father-daughter relationship was supposed to be the backbone of the movie, but the daughter's actions were so stupid that I really couldn't care for a second about it.

Worse were the two 'evil' human characters that were so laughably one-dimensional that they might have well been twirling their mustache and laughing maniacally everytime they were on screen (which I feel they might have actually done at some point). They were just thrown in there to have them been mauled in the worst ways possible and make us cheer instead of being repelled by it, which should be the case when humans get shredded by flesheating zombies. It's exceptionally cheap writing which showcases an inability to write any sense of moral ambiguity into your movie.

Maybe I'm just not the target audience for this kind of movie, needing some sort of depth in my story instead of mindless cheap action and gore. And while I don't mind a bit of humor in my action movies, I think what Snyder wrote could barely constitute as such. Making a nerdy character scream like a little girl everytime he encounters a zombie is just not my idea of funny, sorry.

Ultimately, it all feels incredibly cheap. From the writing to the production to the cinematography it feels like a blown up student movie. The actors did their best, but the fact that the cast is entirely C-list does not do the movie any favours. It makes each character more forgettable than the last and makes me not care at at all about any of them.

Occasionally, Snyder does some interesting visual things, but man please let him stay as far away as possible from the writing table. Watchmen was a great movie, mostly because it stayed pretty close to the amazing source material. That's when Snyder's visual style actually enhances a movie. With terrible writing like Army of the Dead, all his visual quirks just make the experience even more grating.

Vice (I) (2018)

A story worth telling, just maybe not in this manner

[6/10 · 9 May 2020]

Vice tries to tell the story of Dick Cheney, named ' the most influential vice-president in American history'. At the end of the film, we've seen all the major events that he was involved in, but at the same time we're no closer to understanding his character. There's little to no underlying motivation to his actions, and while this is preambled in the beginning title screens, indicating that Cheney is a secretive person so they don't know everything, I feel like the movie could have spend more time trying to understand his character. I do understand the minefield this is, since any motivations would be leaning towards a personal (and probably not very favorable) interpretation, most likely with a liberal bias. It therefore tried to stick to (a still politicized version of) the 'facts' , trying to educate the audience in that manner.

In that sense, the movie succeeds. Above all, it's a very well-made movie. It's slick and stylish, just like McKay's previous movie The Big Short. The editing is smooth, the performances are obviously great, and the writing sheds a light on all the actions that make Dick Cheney (and his comerades) the war criminal that he factually is. This is a story that cannot be told often enough, lest we forgot just how despicable some of the actions undertaken by certain members of government truly are.

However, by sticking to the 'facts' and not trying to understand the person behind the actions, the movie feels cold and the story better off in a documentary in the same style. The movie does try to sprinkle little bits of personality and emotion here and there, particularly relating to Cheney's gay daughter. These moments are however few and far inbetween, making you think 'oh yeah that's right, I almost forgot this was a thing they were dealing with' instead of it being a focal point of Cheney's personality and motivation.

This is a problem you run into more often with such political stories, most recently in 'The Report' that also looked at the post 9-11 actions of the government, shedding a light on America's (il)legal torture practices instead. They're so focused on conveying all the information that the characterization gets undersnowed. This is particularly egregious if the movie spans a very large timespan, like Vice did. It probably would have helped the movie if it only focused on one aspect of his career/life, like his actual vice presidency, and give this more time to breathe rather than trying to tell everything all at once.

Overall, Vice is a movie worth seeing just for being reminded of the disgraceful post 9-11 actions of the American government, and the great performances, particularly by an unrecognizable Christian Bale. Just don't expect a layered dramatic movie, but rather a series of stylishly edited and narrated highlight reels of Cheney and friends.

Extraction (2020)

Great action movie

[9/10 · 25 April 2020]

I went in with low expectations, expecting Extraction to be another crappy run of the mill action movie like Netflix has produced dozens of over the last few years (I'm especially looking at you, 6 Underground and Spenser Confidential). I was therefore very pleasantly surprised to see just how well crafted this movie is. It has excellent grounded action scenes, great set pieces, fantastic cinematography (I'm a sucker for those epic long takes) and a surprising amount of emotion in large part thanks to amazing performances by Chris Hemsworth and the kid who plays Ovi.

True, the story isn't too much to write home about, but it gets the job done setting up the action that is the bulk of the movie. And of course it's an action movie in which one guy manages to take out entire armies so be prepared to suspend your disbelief a bit, but thanks to the excellent execution it never took me out of It. The movie catches its breath a few times and doesn't feel dull in those moments, thanks to the interactions between Hemsworth and the kid. Didn't know this movie was partially produced by the Russo brothers, but it made total sense after seeing it.

If you like well executed action movies that don't just rely on CGI explosions and fast editing, give this a watch. You probably won't regret it. At least I didn't.

Game of Thrones: The Iron Throne (2019) Season 8, Episode 6

A flawed but worthy ending

[9/10 · 20 May 2019]

I felt compelled to write a review to counter all the negativity surrounding this episode and the season as a whole. Now that is not to say I am oblivious to some of the major flaws of the season. It's hard to deny the sense that the story has been fast-forwarded and really rushed for most of the last two seasons. It's also obvious that the writing hasn't been nearly as tight as the first few seasons, when they followed the books and reality more closely. This is a trend that has been going on since season 5 (and even parts of 4), so it hardly comes out of nowhere.

I think a big part of your enjoyment of this last season depends on your willingness to accept this fact. It's undoubtedly a shame that the show has moved into more standard tv territory, but I'm also of the opinion that the characters are still as compelling as ever, and what the show lacks in tight writing, it makes up for in production and visual design. These last two episodes in particular have been absolutely breathtaking from a visual point of view. Episode 8.5 is an absolute masterpiece in pacing and set-up, followed by the gorgeous and brutal destruction of King's Landing. It's honestly one of my favorite episodes of the entire series, certainly one of the best made episodes in television history (again, from a production point of view).

Which brings me to the next point on which your enjoyment depends: your willingness to accept the fact that Daenerys may not be the good guy of the story after all. People seem to think that Daenerys transformation into the Mad Queen seems very sudden and uncharacteristic of the character. This is a point of criticism that I find much harder to swallow, because I strongly feel that Daenerys' turn into madness has been massively hinted at since season 1. Unlike many people who seem to be a fan of Daenerys, I have never bought into Dany's savior complex and have been skeptical of her intentions from the start, or at least certainly from season 3 onwards. She's always had an unhealthy obsession with conquering the throne, and an overblown sense of entitlement all throughout. Tyrion's conversation with Jon is almost a conversation of Tyrion with the fans, trying to remind us of how much we all rejoiced when she was burning and crucifying people alive, simply because we taught of them as the bad guys. The madness was clearly always there, and definitely more front and center in season 7 and 8. Yet when she finally snaps and gives into her worst instincts towards people less deserving (after losing almost everyone she cared about, including Jorah, Missandei, and another one of her dragons, and feeling betrayed by her closest friends/advisors) it's somehow uncharacteristic? Sure, maybe the moment in episode 8.5 itself was a little sudden, and the idea needed a little more time to breathe, but the storyline itself is an entirely valid one, even despite the hastiness of the story. It's a beautifully nihilistic storyline, that we can't always truly overcome the worst parts of our selves. I even view it as a mental illness issue, that our destructive side nests inside us and can come out of every one of us if we had the power to do so, which Dany has.

As a continuation of this Mad Queen storyline, I thought the finale was completely satisfying. For the first time in years, Tyrion was actually his clever and useful self again and key into shaping the ending. Tyrion seeing the dead bodies of his siblings was heartwrenching. Jon and Dany's visually stunning throne room scene was emotionally satisfying, not in small part due to Kit Harington and Emilia Clarke's amazing acting. And I loved the way they actually wrapped up the show. It may not be the most realistic and believable ending, but it paid great hommage to all these characters we came to love over the seasons. My favorite was Brienne finishing Jaime's entry into the Lord Commanders' White Book, but I'm also pleased with the Stark children's send off. They have always been the emotional core of the show, and I think they have suffered enough throughout the story to be given a positive ending, even if that may not be the most realistic one.

Overall, despite its rushed story, I was very satisfied with the final season. A show like this was always gonna end on a divisive note, with so many fan theories never coming to fruition. I do think the show would have benefit from a few more episodes, or maybe just a small restructuring of the last two seasons. After having given it some thought, I would have like to have seen season 7 in its entirety being about the battle against the White Walkers, while season 8 would have been about the final game of thrones. I think that would have given the story a bit more focus, and feel less rushed. But I'm also willing to accept that the makers decided to go a different route, and gave us the story we were given. It's damn hard making a good tv-show, and I appreciate all the love and effort from everyone involved that has gone into making this. And hey, there are always the books for those who are so angered by the show. If they ever get made that is...

Mortal Engines (2018)

Awesome concept, poor everything else

[4/10 · 9 March 2019]

The concept of a post apocalyptic wasteland where giant cities on wheels hunt eachother is a really cool one that instantly drew me to this movie. Unfortunately, watching 'Mortal Engines' it quickly becomes clear that behind this awesome facade is yet another generic and predictable 'little guy stands up against the evil and corrupt overlords' mess of a story.

The movie starts out well enough, with a cool opening chase sequence that demonstrates the rules of this post-apocalyptic world. However, the whole 'city vs city' concept gets thrown overboard pretty quickly, and the biggest draw of the movie just becomes a side notion that isn't developed properly. It gets overtaken by a 'Terminator' style storyline that isn't bad in and of itself, but it too is abandoned halfway, while the movie trods along to a predictable, entirely computer generated climactic battle. It should have the Shrike storyline as the main focus of the movie throughout, or just leave that aside to give more room to developing this potentially fascinating world and its inhabitants. Instead, it feels like an awkward jumble of several half-developed stories.

It's clear that all the money went into the CGI, and they had to rely on lesser known actors. While they don't do a poor job per se, they do nothing to make the characters stand out in anyway, and the actors are almost as generic and bland as the characters they are portraying. As for where all that money did go, visually it looks good enough for an almost entirely computer generated movie. I can't really see how they could have made this movie without relying so much on CGI, so I can't exactly fault them for it, but it does look a bit too much like a videogame or an animated movie at times.

While 'Mortal Engines' has proven to be a dud, I have to give it credit for trying to make a high budget original sci-fi movie that isn't about superheroes. It's just a shame that such an awesome concept has been almost entirely negated by a messy, convoluted, and underdeveloped story. It's an even bigger shame that this is coming from the same minds behind the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy. I'm worried a failure this size might be the death of their ambitions as big budget film makers, which would be a shame because they've clearly demonstrated their skills in the past. Let's hope this is the low point they need to push themselves to better things. Then at least something good will have come from it.

The Favourite (2018)

Mesmerizing and hypnotizing

[9/10 · 28 December 2018]

"The Favourite" combines an everwinding script with technical excellence and powerhouse acting, making for an overwhelmingly positive, almost hypnotic experience. It's easily Yorgos Lanthimos' most accessible movie, which still makes it very absurd and satirical by you average movie standard, but storywise feels more conventional than his previous outings, which I consider to be a positive thing. Whereas for instance "The Lobster" felt a little absurd for the sake of being absurd, the absurdity in "The Favourite" comes from its absurd settings and characters, inspired by real life British politics and the monarcy in the 18/19th century. It is absurdity that makes you think 'Man, life was weird back in the day', rather than 'Look at that character doing silly things because the writer wrote them as silly'. It's exaggerated but still largely believable.

There are a few areas in which "The Favourite" excels beyond its overall solid script. On a technical level, the camera work is top notch, constantly twisting and turning, making use of all sorts of different camera tricks to highlight the absurdity of the setting. I especially love what they did with the lighting, constantly making use of natural candle light to only focus on the characters' faces and drown out the dark background. There's an especially beautifully shot scene between Emma Stone and Nicholas Hoult's characters taking place outside at night entirely in the dark, seemingly only lit by old school braziers. It gives the movie a much more authenthic feel.

Musically, it's pretty great too. There's your average choiry, organy score that you'd expect from a period piece, which is executed very well. More impressive are the moments where the music becomes very minimalistic, nothing more than a constant rhytmic drum, which gives off an incredibly hypnotic vibe that could last for 10 minutes at a time. It does a great job in drawing you in.

However, it's the acting which truly makes this movie stand out. The main trio of actresses are all exceptional in their own very distinct way. Rachel Weisz plays the more distant, seemingly harsh and coldhearted character who you believe can turn to murder at any time. Emma Stone on the other hand plays the instantly loveable, somewhat clumsy and endearing character that only Emma Stone can play. What's great about these two performances is that over the course of the movie they become much more layered and there's more than meets the eye for both characters. Your sympathies constantly shift between the two, which is a testament to both the writing and the versatility of the actresses.

As amazing as Weisz and Stone are, it's Olivia Colman that truly steals the show, like she does in anything she is in. It helps that she gets the more meaty scenes in which she can let loose and go all in, but it's her quiter moments and her subtle facial expressions that truly sell her performance. She can go from absurd, childish, and over-the-top, to heart-broken and introverted and back all in the course of a single scene. She has the most absurd things to say and do, but she's also the most human and loveable of them all. I'm stoked that Colman's finally getting the recognition she deserves, because I genuinely believe she is the best actress working today.

Despite me being overwhelmingly impressed, there are some flaws that I need to address. In particular, the movie struggles in its third act to come to a conclusion. The story seems to fold onto itself a few times, and extend beyond a natural ending point, making the movie seem longer than it truly is. At the end, I thought I had watched a 2,5 hour long movie, when in reality it was under 2 hours long. The script could have used a little thightening up in that regard, particularly because it also loses some of its trademark absurdity by the end, making you slightly lose some interest.

These minor storytelling faults not withstanding, I did genuinely love this movie. It may not be for everyone, and that's entirely fair since Lanthimos' previous movies weren't really for me either, but the combination of technical excellence and superb acting alone makes this movie a must-see in my book.

A Wrinkle in Time (2018)

Completely incoherent

[4/10 · 21 December 2018]

"A Wrinkle in Time" is a baffling movie experience. It's an ambitious adaptation, and I'll give them credit for trying, but they come nowhere close to pulling it off. The story is a complete mess. There's no rhyme or reason to the events that happen, the places they visit, and the people and things they encounter. I'm sure in the book these things were all developed and explained thoroughly but in the movie it all just comes off as random and nonsensical. One moment they're on some planet riding a space wizard, the next moment they go to another planet to visit another space wizard, then suddenly they are in another place facing an inexplicable hazard that of course they magically overcome, then they're at a beach running into a red-eyed Michael Pena, etc. It's science-fiction/fantasy at its worst, where the story is completely incoherent and all the explanations for what's happening is just 'magic' or 'love' or 'because'.

The dialogue is also so artificial, that's just not how people talk to each other, at least not in the modern day setting it's supposed to be set in. And 'Charles Wallace' is an incredibly dumb and annoying name. I find it very hard to believe that at least the sister wouldn't have found a shortened nickname to use. That may sound like a minor nitpick, but considering they say/shout the name about a hundred times during the movie, it just becomes grating to the ears.

It's a shame, because there's so much talent involved in the making of this movie. The cast is top notch, although many of the actors are wasted on dumb characters, and even all the younger actors do a very good job, particularly the young girl. It has a talented up-and-coming director. Visually it looks pretty great most of the time and it does some really cool and unique things with the visuals, but visuals alone can't save a movie if they serve no purpose to the story. The one area of the movie I do consistently really like is the score, particularly in those moments that are meant to avoke wonder. It's nothing too revolutionairy, just very well-executed, and I was not surprised to learn from the credits that the composer is the excellent Ramin Djawadi of Game of Thrones and Westworld fame.

Overall, this adaptation was a sorry misfire that was unfortunately doomed to fail from the start. Complex science fiction and fantasy stories that deal with complicated matters such as different dimensions and time travelling/bending (of which there is a severe lack in a movie that has the concept of 'time' in its title by the way), simple cannot be accurately translated into a 100 minute movie, mainly aimed at children. It usually either becomes an exposition dump of dry information, or they simply don't bother to properly explain the concepts at all, both of which result in poor story-telling. Maybe in the future, these novels get the elongated television series treatment they deserve, similar to how the upcoming His Dark Materials (2019) tv series will hopefully clear the stain of the horrible 'The Golden Compass' (2007) movie adaptation.

Venom (2018)

It's bad

[3/10 · 14 December 2018]

It's amazing how a movie with so much talent involved, based on such an awesome and iconic character can miss the mark so badly. Everything, from the writing to the editing to the visual effects/design, even to some of the acting just didn't work.

Starting with the latter, Tom Hardy does his best, and when he has some genuine, non-contrived scenes he's actually pretty great. The guy's obviously a great actor, but he has to work with some mindbogglingly dumbly written scenes that even he can't save and he just ends up looking silly. The poor humor is in general one of the main reasons I ended up disliking this movie so much. They were going for some Deadpoolesque humor, but most of it just came off incredibly lame to me. I mainly laughed because of how bizar some of the creative decisions were rather than the humor itself. More even than in the action, this is where the PG-13 rating hurts the movie the most. If you're gonna make gruesome killing try to seem funny, you have to make the humor fit that narrative and you can't do that if you're restricted in what you're allowed to say and show.

It's also surprisingly light on action. It's a lot of Tom Hardy acting awkwardly in public and an ocassional CGI hand that slams some guy into a wall. There's one long motor chase scene which was used more as a set of jokes than a good action set piece, an obligatory climactic battle, and that's pretty much it. It was just not very fulfilling. The climactic scene is one huge CGI-fest between two creatures that did not look as good as they should have. It's not like the effects are terrible, but the designs of Venom and particularly Riot just are a little bland and uninteresting.

This weird input of action is a result of the film's poor pacing. It takes almost an hour for 'Venom' to actually Venom, and then it rushes the final act and all of a sudden it's over. Many superhero movies make the mistake of cramming in too many villains and plotlines and making the film unnecessarily lengthy and bloated, but 'Venom' takes it to the other extreme. It's incredibly light on story and way too short. Effectively clocking in at only 90 minutes, it should have take 15 to 30 more minutes to develop its storylines further. Particularly Riot as a villain needed more screen time, because he is just kinda suddenly there to give Venom another supernatural creature to fight against. I like the 'doing evil deeds for a good cause' direction they gave Riz Ahmed's character, and I think he's one of the better aspects of the movie, but that whole arc is ruined by Riot turning the story into a generic 'I'm evil and want to do evil things' trope.

The symbiotic relationship between Eddie Brock and Venom also could have benefitted from some more depth, particularly to establish why exactly Venom decided to be a good guy after all. Because as much as they were trying to paint Venom as some anti-hero throughout the build-up to this movie, he just ends up full hero at the end. He stops the evil symbiote from carrying out his plan and saves the world, and other than out of self-defense, almost only hurts clearly evil people. That may make him a little more vigilante than superhero, but still pretty much your typical good guy.

Finally, as a comparatively minor but still noticable issue, I also did not like the editing of this movie. Many of the transitions between scenes were really sudden, like when Eddie Brock is in the restaurant behaving erratically and the next moment he's having an MRI at the hospital. There are also some scenes that are ended rather abruptly, which I once again attribute to the PG-13 rating, since it's always when something supposedly violent was about to happen. In general, the poor editing really breaks up the flow of the movie, since it jumps around so much in time and space.

All in all, I was very disappointed by 'Venom'. All the ingredients of success were there, but Sony once again managed to mess it up somehow. It made a ton of money so undoubtedly there's gonna be a sequel, so I'll end on a positive note: with the obligatory origin story out of the way, it can only get better from here.

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)

Great production and superb Rami Malek make up for some story-telling weak points

[8/10 · 11 December 2018]

Going into Bohemian Rhapsody, I heard so many conflicting reports about its quality that I had no idea what to expect. Critics disliked it, audiences loved it. Usually that means the 'truth' is somewhere in the middle, and I was surprised to see myself leaning more towards the audience side as the movie went on.

That's not to say I don't see where the criticism is coming from though, and I actually agree with quite a bit of it. Particularly the first half of the movie is rather shallow, well-executed, by-the-numbers nostalgia porn. Many scenes are made and meant to be viewed with current day knowledge, which makes for some cheap gags and winks to the audience but not particularly compelling story-telling. The recording sessions, while well-executed and full of energy, add very little other than a game of 'who's who' of Queen's greatest hits. As someone who appreciates Queen's music but didn't grow up with it and don't have a particularly large (nostalgic) fondness to it, this didn't really do much for me.

All that being said, most of these issues go away in the second half of the movie, when it's a lot more insightful into the person Freddie Mercury. The key moment that changes my view on the movie is when Freddie first confronts his sexuality with his fiance. It's the first real moment of character that he gets other than just being flamboyant and it hits like a bombshell, mainly because of Rami Malek's powerhouse performance as Freddie Mercury. From there, the film focuses much more on Freddie Mercury's character, and his flaws, and it becomes a much better film because of it.

Together with the incredibly energetic and well-executed music scenes (other than some very noticable audience CGI at the final performance), it overall makes for a very pumped up and positive movie-going experience. The role that Rami Malek plays in all of this is crucial. He gives it his all and it elevates the movie to another level. It's definitely worth seeing for his performance alone.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)

Falls into the same traps as the first movie, but solidly entertaining nonetheless

[7/10 · 29 November 2018]

"Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" suffers from many of the same problems as its predecessor. Those problems mainly stem from an identity crisis, in that it does not really know what it wants to be, and the tone of the movie is therefore all over the place. It wants to be a more kid-friendly movie about cute magical beasts that cause all kinds of mischief, while at the same time being a dark and gritty tale that works as a prequel to the Harry Potter series. What it does better than the first movie, is that those two different worlds gel better in "Crimes of Grindelwald", and feel less like two completely separated storylines awkwardly mashed together. The actions of Newt Scamander are much more closely related to the Grindelwald storyline than it did before.

However, the movie still struggles to balance all the different storylines it presents, and those storylines still awkwardly converge to the same story point. Their main purpose is to get the characters in the same place at the same time, and the plot stumbles forward at a snail's pace. If you look at the "main" storyline, that of Grindelwald's rise to power, there really is barely anything that happens in the 2+ hour runtime. It starts with Grindelwald escaping, and ends with him summoning potential followers and having a showdown with our protagonists. Those two events could easily be much closer to each other in a more focused and less bloated movie, but it feels like Rowling had to cram in a lot of somewhat irrelevant things in order to fill the runtime and make room for the other three movies that are still planned in this series. Also, for a movie sub-titled "The Crimes of Grindelwald" there really is very little to no focus on those crimes.

All of those things being said, I still found myself very much enjoying this movie. It was a bit meandering at times, and somewhat light on action, but what action there was, once again looked stunning. It did a great job of expanding on this beautiful magical world, and visually it was quite spectacular. There were enough little nods to the Harry Potter stories we know and love to satisfy me without it feeling solely as fan service.

The individual storylines, while together lacking focus, on their own were engaging enough to keep me interested all throughout the movie. I enjoyed all the interactions between the main characters, and all the actors did a great job. Special props to Johnny Depp, who has gotten a lot of flack for his casting, but in my opinion gave a terrific performance; part sympathetic and part terrifying, which was exactly the point. I wish we had gotten a little more of the Dumbledore-Grindelwald backstory, but I guess the world as a whole is not entirely ready for a central homosexual lovestory in a major blockbuster. For now, we gotta do with some handlocking, and honestly, I'll take what I can get at this point. They handled it delicately and with subtlety, while not ignoring it entirely, and I can't have too many complaints about that.

Overall, I went in with somewhat lower expectations due to some of the negativity surrounding the movie, which has worked beneficially to my enjoyment of it. I hope the next movies can learn from the mistakes of its predeccesors and present a more unified story. This is going to be a tricky thing to accomplish since it would need to stray further away from the titular fantastic beasts, but hopefully my faith in Rowling will be rewarded in the end.Falls into the same traps as the first movie, but solidly entertaining nonetheless

Mulholland Drive (2001)

Surrealism taken too far

[6/10 · 5 November 2018]

David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" is in many ways a hypnotic, well-directed and well-acted piece of surrealistic film. I'm still somewhat unsure of whether it is artistic genius or pretentious schlock, but right now I fall somewhere in the middle between these two extremes. I acknowledge the ambition and artistic integrity that went into making a movie such as this, and just how dinstinctly David Lynch and wildly different from any other movie it is. It's a very visceral movie experience, relying mainly on ambient music and visuals. At the same time I am also highly aware and annoyed of the fact that this is a movie that deliberately barely makes any sense without some sort of pre-conceived notion of what is going on.

On first viewing (which is what I'm basing this review on, as I only just watched it for the first time), it's nigh impossible to understand what is happening. Only after reading up on the plot of the movie does some of the events fall into place. Some might see that as a plus, that it has many additional layers that get unravelled on repeat viewings. I would agree with that, if there were any initial layers to process. Instead, from a story perspective I got absolutely nothing out of it without looking it up, and that is a storytelling sin in my book.

A large part of my frustration with the movie comes from the fact that the fantasy/surrealistic part of the movie goes on waaaaay too long in comparison to the 'reality' part. There are also no real hints that this is a fantasy/dream other than of course the fact that some bizarre stuff happens. This bizarre stuff happens equally in the 'real' section of the movie though, so that's not really very enlightening.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all up for weird psychological tales with surrealistic elements, but if those surrealistic elements take up three-quarters (2 hours!) of the movie before coming to anything resembling any sort of sense, you have overdone your surrealism in my opinion. It made the end of the movie feel really rushed, as there was not enough time to properly connect the fantasy to the reality. If it was a more even 50-50 split, or if there were a few more specks of 'reality' interspersed into the fantasy part, I think it would have strongly improved my appreciation for the movie.

As it is, I dig the whole hypnotic and surrealistic vibe of the movie on a visceral level, as well as the performances (especially Naomi Watts'), but the deliberate lack of any sort of coherent story just rubs me the wrong way. Which is a shame, because the underlying story beats that get presented at the end are actually really moving and deeply human.

Love, Simon (2018)

A little too sweet, but well worth watching

[7/10 · 3 June 2018]

The movie "Love, Simon", like the book, excels most at the authentic portrayal of an average gay teen trying to come to terms with his sexuality. It seems like there's a new wave of gay movies coming along in which it is no longer about the abuse one gets from others for being gay, but rather the struggles that go along with discovering and expressing your sexuality, even if you know that your family and friends are going to be completely fine with it. Rather than the fear of hate, the fear of change is already a very powerful repellent against coming out. It's the reason I have waited to well past my teens to do it myself, and even now I'm still not very public about it.

So the message and overall tone of the movie and book is something that speaks to me very well. The actors all did a great job, and the movie was quirky and genuinely funny at times, and completely denounced of any cynicism. Some of the scenes at the end also struck an emotional cord with me, particularly the interactions between Simon and his parents. While they weren't as poetic as "Call Me By Your Name"'s ending speech, they were a lot more grounded and authentic and as equally welcome for any gay kid.

That being said, I do believe both the book and the movie delve a little too deeply into candy-covered Hollywood cheesy sweetness. It checks all the regular teen dramedy boxes and while the gay angle is quite original and refreshing, not a whole lot else of the movie is. There's the usual teen romantic drama and tensions between friends , an excentric vice-principal, drama class, a sassy drama teacher, and a sickeningly sweet ending that is a little too over the top feel-good to actually feel very good. It lacks that little edge and rawness to give it a sense of realism, instead of feeling like a fictional book/Hollywood fabrication.

So although Love, Simon doesn't do anything to advance the genre of romantic teen dramedies, it is a welcome addition to (gay) cinema, if only for being a small mainstream hit that helps increase awareness and representation of your average gay person.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

Wildly entertaining and surprisingly bold and unconventional (MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD)

[9/10 · 30 April 2018]

Avengers: Infinity War is popcorn spectacle of the highest order, bringing action scene after action scene with barely any respite. It sounds almost exhausting, but because of the large variety of both characters and locations, it never gets stale. Almost all the Avengers gets their moment to shine, and all add to the plot in an organic and interesting manner, though team Captain America seemed to draw the short stick because they were easily the least impactful group. There are some really cool new combinations of superheroes (like Thor and Rocket, and Starlord and Iron Man) that actually feel earned after 10 years of build up. It reminded me a lot of Game of Thrones, that after scattering the main characters they're finally all being brought back together in interesting combinations that you did not think you needed but now can't imagine not existing.

Thanos is a suprisingly great villain, both menacing and in a strange way likeable and understandable. Despite his appearance, he's a lot more than generic bad guy that just wants to destroy the world for no particular reason #6. It takes a bad film like DC's Justice League to realize that such organic and cool superhero meetups combined with a good villain is really not all that easy to achieve.

The actions sequences are mostly great, because of the aforementioned variety in characters and locations. I love how every superhero has their own unique fighting style and it really shows on screen. You never feel like 'who exactly was that?'. Every character is distinguishable from the others and work together in a grealy entertaining way. You just got to love Spider-Man making use of Doctor Strange's magic portals to give a quick example of a great team-up.

The boldness comes largely at the end, with some really daring choices made by the writers. The biggest being that the villain actually wins at the end, in this weird The Leftovers meets Inferno (the book) kinda ending. Of course you know that there's going to be a reset of sorts and that most of the characters who died will come back, but at least in this movie, the unstoppable villain actually proved to be unstoppable for a change. That's very refreshing and resulted in some rather emotional scenes towards the end.

Of course there are still some flaws in the film. Despite the film's ballsy ending, the real death count is surprisingly tame and filled with relatively minor characters. Loki is the biggest one, but he kinda had it coming after several fakeouts. I really thought one of the original Avengers would kick the bucket, and was pervertedly unsatisfied when it didn't happen, again similar to Game of Thrones and the lack of major deaths in the latter seasons. Particularly Iron Man and Thor's potential death scenes were set up to a lack of payoff.

The scene between Vision and Scarlett Witch would have meant more if we cared more about these characters. As it is, we've barely seen them throughout the years and a few early romantic scenes between them didn't really add all that much to it. This is where the lack of own films for these characters really is evident the most. The parallel scenes between Thanos and Gamora were a lot more effective because we've seen a lot more of particularly Gamora, although I still think it would have helped if we had a bit more of that interaction in previous movies.

And as much as I loved the ending for having the bad guy be victorious, it really is diminished quite a bit by the knowledge that there will be a reset of sorts and the deaths aren't real deaths. It's once again really similar to Game of Thrones and the main character that died but we all knew would be back the next season. I'll admit it's a bit of a catch-22 though. If instead they would have killed off some more minor characters that might believably stay dead, you'd be left with the idea that conveniently it's only minor characters that perished, whereas the point of Thanos' plan is that anyone can be killed off regardless of importance. Still, because of it being the likes of Black Panther, Doctor Strange and Spider-man of whom we know there are sequels in the making, it does diminish the impact of these moments, though I still found them quite emotional.

Despite these flaws, I was highly entertained and captivated by almost all that transpired on screen. All in all, Avengers: Infinity War is one of the better superhero movies out there. It has so many great (action) moments and a surprisingly bold narrative for a superhero movie. I can't wait to see where they are going next, as long as they find a way to not make the events of this movie seem like a complete red herring and entire waste of time.

The Lobster (2015)

More absurd than necessary

[7/10 · 23 February 2018]

The Lobster is a very difficult movie to assess. Its premise is so ridiculous and absurd that it's bound to be a divisive movie that isn't for everyone. The first half in particular is a difficult sit through, as due to their absurdity, many story elements seem completely random at first. It's only halfway through that things seem to click together, and an impressively cohesive story emerges. I'm actually so impressed with the underlying story, that I believe this would have made a terrific science fiction movie if played a little more seriously.

It is basically a movie about a dystopian future in which people are forced to become married or run the risk of being turned into an animal, or being hunted if trying to avoid this outcome. There are some very interesting reflections on the pressures of society to find a partner and the superficial ways that people get together and pretend to be someone else in order to avoid ending up alone. Interestingly, the fugitive group of loners is equally as radical in their approach, forcing their members to stay alone and punishing them for showing any type of romantic affection towards another. I see this broadly as a remark on society in general, in which there are extremists on both ends of the political spectrum, each hating the other, but neither one being particularly desirable from a neutral point of view. Like always, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I found myself being thoroughly engaged in these ideas, but at times were taken out of it by the absurdist nature of many of the scenes. The deadpan and deliberately wooden acting is quirky and interesting at first, but grows tiresome rather quickly, and the dialogue seemed very scripted and unnatural (as it was intended). I also personally didn't think it was as funny as the writers hoped I would think, being left confused and frustrated at some scenes rather than laughing at them.

I'm sure many will disagree, and believe the absurdity is at the core of the film and the movie wouldn't have worked without it. Indeed, it might have run the risk of being a little more run-of-the-mill if played more seriously and left in less capable hands. However, the underlying ideas were so strong that I really don't think it needed the excessive absurdity. I believe this might be a case of the writers underestimating the quality of their screenplay and throwing in some quirky things to make it seem a bit more alternative and anti-mainstream than it needed to be. Even the central concept of turning into an animal if failing to find a partner within 45 days was superfluous to the main story. The movie would have worked just as well if a different type of punishment was presented. Or at least it could have been given a bit more prominence. The fact that the animals that are walking around were once humans is being mentioned in a throwaway line or two, but never really fully explored.

I'm not saying it should have been a full on dark and gritty science-fiction drama. It could have retained its satirical outlook, which suits the story quite well. It just went a little overboard with trying to seem as weird and quirky as possible, which is a shame as The Lobster is now mainly being remembered as 'that weird movie in which humans turn into animals', even though there's so much more to this great story.

Justice League (2017)

There is so much wrong with this movie, it's difficult to know where to start.

[2/10 · 18 February 2018]

Let's start with the most obvious weakpoint: the villain. Steppenwolf is a laughably bad villain, ripped straight out of a 90ies direct-to-DVD film. He is just a big bland CGI character with absolutely no personality whatsoever. He has no motivation other than being the generic evil guy trying to destroy the world. Apparently it's not even hís plan. If I understood correctly, he's the henchman for some other character that we never learn anything about. His entire design was just uninspired, and he looked and sounded more like a weaker version of the Beast from the live action Beauty and the Beast than one of the strongest characters in the world, hellbend on creating destruction.

Then there are the problems with the entire way that DC is approaching these movies. Making this an ensemble movie, just like with Batman v Superman, feels entirely unearned and a cynical attempt to cash in on the widespread brand recognition of Batman and Superman, and to a slightly lesser degree Wonder Woman, and of course the success of Marvel. It's really hard to look at this film and not conclude that this is DC's failed attempt at creating their version of The Avengers.

However, whereas The Avengers' meetup felt natural, having been build up throughout its previous 5 movies, Justice League decides to introduce half of the entire league in just this movie. This makes most of the first half of the movie an uneven and boring bunch of random character introductions. Only Wonder Woman and the segments on Themyscira felt natural, because we were already introduced to their culture before and therefore had some connection to them.

The rest of the Justice League itself is also lackluster. Jason Momoa's Aquaman was kinda interesting, but it once again feels incredibly cynical that they would introduce the character in this movie instead of in his own one, just because they knew that it would be hard to get people excited for an Aquaman standalone movie without an introduction to the character first. They don't care that it's to the detriment of the quality of this movie, it's just a way too get people to buy into a future film, exactly as they did with Wonder Woman. In this case they actually would have done well to look at Marvel, as they were able to introduce obscure and silly looking/sounding characters like Ant-Man and the Guardians of the Galaxy in standalone movies, and make it a critical and commercial success.

Cyborg was just boring and uninteresting. He has no personality, there's nothing to his character, because there was not enough time for a proper introduction. Even his suit is making the decisions for him sometimes. The CGI was also quite distracting, as his face looks rather fake.

And of course while The Flash has been around for a long time, I find it hard to believe that they would have introduced his character the way they did without the success of Spider-Man in 2016's Civil War. He's pretty much an exact copy of Spider-Man, playing the teenage boy that is overenthuastic about being a superhero, and deriving humor from that.

They even found a way to make Batman look uncool. He's pretty much just collecting the team for most of the movie, and does very little on his own. What is most disappointing is that Ben Affleck is never really Bruce Wayne. Whenever you see him dressed normally on screen, it's just him doing Batman stuff without his suit on. Even Wonder Woman has a scene of her being Diana Prince, but it's all only Batman throughout.

Then there's Superman, whose return was very poorly done. First of all, if you have a character that is supposedly dead, don't make the actor's name the second one to pop up on the opening credits. That's a surefire way to ruin any potential surprise about his return. Of course that return was inevitable and obvious, but at least put in a little bit of effort to hide that fact. I don't even have to put in spoiler tags in here because DC doesn't even consider his return a spoiler.

Secondly, because his return was so quickly - halfway through the chronological follow up to the movie in which he died - there is absolutely no relief or emotional climax to his arc, or any sense of urgency, really. You never really care that Superman's death has supposedly thrown the world in disarray, because his death barely has had any time to have resonated with the viewers. Hell, his supposed death didn't even make it through the end of the previous movie without some hint of his upcoming return.

If they had some patience and balls, they would have had him stay dead for a few films, preferably those in which the rest of the Justice League got introduced, and in which the threats get increasingly challenging and hard to overcome due to Superman's absence. This way when he finally does return after the rest of the League is facing a truly frightening and unstoppable enemy, his come-back would feel earned.

Overall, there's so much wrong with this movie that although I wrote so much, there are still many flaws left untouched (like Zach Snyder being Zach Snyder doing too many Zach Snyder things, or the nonsensical process of resurrecting Superman that actually put them in more danger than before). It's amazing that after the disaster that was Batman v Superman, they went pretty much the exact same route for its follow-up, setting up an illogical and unearned conflict and resolving it in a cliched and nonsensical manner.

At least Batman v Superman had some really cool action scenes instead of the uninteresting CGI fest that was Justice League. And while Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor was a terrible villain, I'd take him over the soulless CGI monstrosity that is Steppenwolf any day of the week. Justice League is a terrible movie in every regard, and really does not bode well for the future of DC's cinematic universe.

The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)

A bunch of random nonsense happening

[3/10 · 6 February 2018]

I'm a big fan of the first two movies in the Cloverfield 'franchise'. The original Cloverfield is a fantastic old school monster movie, and 10 Cloverfield Lane is a great psychological and claustrophobic thriller. The latter movie was clearly tacked on to the Cloverfield universe, despite having very little to do with the original Cloverfield. That in itself is not a problem, as long as the movie is good, which it definitely is. 10 Cloverfield Lane even suffers from being part of the franchise, as the tacked-on ending was not in line with the rest of the movie.

The Cloverfield Paradox tries to go the same route, where the movie is extremely loosely tied to the larger universe. In this case however, the loose ties are not saved by the movie itself, which is a jumbled mess of random and meaningless nonsense happening.

Basically, The Cloverfield Paradox is yet another space quest gone wrong story as we have had many in the past, with varying degrees of success. Unfortunately, this movie falls in the very bottom end of the success spectrum, due to its messy story and unfinished story elements. While I appreciate the fact that they tried to create a horror movie without an actual monster or villain, the result of this attempt is that they had to create a few scares and gory moments that do not really make any sense. In fact, none of the things that happen ever get explained in any satisfactory manner, other than 'the two dimensions collided/merged'.

Moreover, the whole storyline on earth was only added to pad the runtime and make for the very loose connection to Cloverfield. It did not add anything interesting and only raised more questions that it never even tried to answer.

Ultimately, the biggest sin of this movie is that it was boring and uninteresting, the last thing you would expect from a science fiction horror movie tied into a larger monster universe. I kept waiting for cool explanations and reveals, but they never showed up. What you see is pretty much what you get; just a few people getting killed off in gruesome ways, because that is what a horror movie does.

At the very least I was hoping for some cool tie ins to the original Cloverfield but even those were shoehorned in or flimsy at best. It certainly didn't answer how the monster was created or ended up there, something it advertised it would. It just resorted to the same old 'two dimensions collided/merged' non-answer all the movie used. I'm pretty sure that chronologically none of it even makes sense, as people in the original Cloverfield seemed totally unaware of the events in this movie.

In the end, this movie fails both as a stand alone movie, as well as a part of a larger franchise (due to it barely being part of that franchise). It's clear that the only reason that this is a Netflix film is that everyone involved probably realized that it would flop hard if this got a theater release. And I think that is the biggest positive of this movie: at least I didn't have to pay for it.

Mother! (2017)

A surrealistic masterpiece

[10/10 · 9 January 2018]

I can't pretend to understand everything/anything of what was going on in Darren Aronofsky's Mother!. I'm sure far more intelligent people have tried to dissect its ideas and worded them far more eloquently than I ever could.

All I can say is that I was just consistently drawn to everything that was on screen, from the intriguing and mysterious opening images to their equally as intriguing and mysterious closing counterparts. I loved the slow build up from quiet discomfort and unsettling imagery to complete batsh!t insanity at the end. At the simplest and most superficial level , I just felt such a deep sympathy for Jennifer Lawrence's character. Watching people taking such disadvantage of her hospitality was harrowing to the bone. I guess that is some sort of metaphor for the destructive nature of mankind and how we treat Mother Nature, as well as other human beings. Again, I leave that for the more philosophically inclined among us to ponder.

Looking at it purely cinematically, I thought it was gorgeously shot. There was a sense of discomfort and dread all throughout, without relying on cheap jumpscares or other gimmicks. Leave it to Aronofsky to give us plentiful colourful and gorgeous imagery. It had a very similar surreal vibe to The Fountain, another movie of his that I love. It came across as very organic and realistic, despite the obvious surrealistic nature of what was transpiring.

Jennifer Lawrence was excellent, particularly in the first half of the movie. Seeing as she was the focus of pretty much every single shot, she needed to be. She was at her best as the friendly, but increasingly disgruntled and frustrated hostess. I do think in the more dramatic and loud scenes she has a tendency to become too screechy and somewhat over-the-top, but for the insanity of this movie, I think it worked. Javier Bardem's character is consistently sympathetic and frustrating throughout, a solid job by him as well as the rest of the supporting cast.

All in all, another fantastic addition to an already impressive resume by Aranofsky. He is one of the best film makers currently around, and I am deeply excited and intrigued to see what he comes up with next.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)

Visually stunning, poorly acted

[7/10 · 29 December 2017]

To start with the obvious: Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets is visually stunning, to the point where it even becomes overwhelming, bordeline overkill at times. The main aliens are beautifully crafted, very reminiscent of the Na'vi from Avatar. Pretty much all the other creatures are also very well made, as are the environments and general world-building. Major props to the overall production and art design, and the creators for giving us a visually distinct and unique universe that sadly gets underexplored. Still, I'll take underexplored over generic anytime of the week.

To continue with the second obvious: The acting is terrible. Although he doesn't do anything particularly wrong, Dane DeHaan is flat and monotone throughout. Considering I've seen much better from him in some of his previous roles (particularly in Chronicle), I'm going to chalk that up to poor directing and the difficulties of acting in an all green-screen environment.

Cara Delevigne on the other hand is simply not an actress. She does not come close to having the acting chops to carry a whole film. She's alright if she just does some quick witty banter, but anything requiring any type of range is, well, out of her range. The same goes for Rihanna, who was simply awful and delivered all her lines the way you'd expect someone with very limited acting experience and talent to deliver them: choppy and wooden, as if they're read directly from the page. Again, that is not really her fault, because she simply is not an actress. That is down to the producers, who thought that bringing in a model and an actress would boost ticket sales.

Spoiler: it didn't. Had they gone for better actors, it would have still probably bombed at the box office, but at least potentially could have gained the same sort of respect as something like The Fifth Element. Instead, it brings down what could have been a cult classic: a movie with an average script, but stunning visuals seeping with originality and vitality, and creatures and environments that can only have been been made up under the influence of some sort of hallucinogens. I still thoroughly enjoyed it, but I can see why others thoroughly wouldn't.

Death Note (I) (2017)

A complete mess

[3/10 · 17 September 2017]

Having never seen or know anything about the original series, I went in open minded. I was aware of the negative reviews it had received, but I am also aware that oftentimes such negative feedback is largely because fanboys tend to complain about any little detail that is different from the original source material. There's plenty of adaptations that I've enjoyed despite the backlash, including the recent Ghost in the Shell adaptation. So I was ready to be pleasantly surprised.

Unfortunately, in this case the bad reviews were more than justified. This movie is a complete mess from start to finish. Storywise, while it has some interesting ideas, it is completely rushed. It's clear that this was meant to be a multi-episode story, and not a 100 minute long film because the story moves at such a fast pace that it is near incomprehensible. We go from Light (which is a laughably dumb name btw, at least in a Western setting) being gifted the book, to him creating a god-worshipping movement and being chased down by law enforcement in no time. There was no time to let any of the events sink in, and it was hard to buy or care for any of it as a result. The relationship between Light and Mia was similarly rushed. They barely even know each other at the beginning and half way through they are already deeply and inseparably in love. I simply didn't buy it.

While the overall premise is interesting, there's nothing in this movie to suggest me that both Light and definitely Mia aren't straight up psychopaths. Being a wildly anti-vigilante person myself I don't believe in any form of revenge as suitable justice, and I am already almost always on the other side of the people we are supposed to root for in these kinds of stories. I'm sure that in the original series there were plenty of layers of gray, but starting of with decapitating a bully definitely isn't helping me get on their side. The ending, which was I guess supposed to be emotional, just left me indifferent, since I so disliked both of these characters. In fact, the dad was the only likable and reasonable character in this entire movie. L was just annoying and it really bothered me that he had the backing of the entire police force based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

A lot of the ending scenes left me incredibly confused, and I think it's because of a scene halfway through in which Light says something along the lines of 'it is a good thing I am the owner' in response to Mia's insane suggestions of how to use the book. That interaction heavily implies that only the owner can control the book. Obviously that wasn't actually the case, but the writing certainly didn't make that clear, leaving me confused at all the flashback type scenes that explained what truly happened. I was also very disappointed that they didn't explain a little more about Ryuk and his background. I kept thinking there was going to be some sort of reveal, but it never came. Even the 'be aware of Ryuk' message ultimately didn't amount to anything.

But all of this is just the story elements and poor script. The movie might have been somewhat saved if the other elements were at least good. But unfortunately almost everything in this movie was poor. Some of the acting was simply awful. Nat Wolff continues to leave me baffled as to how he became a professional actor, and that is definitely not a good thing if that is your lead performance. None of the surrounding actors were much better, although I did like Willem Dafoe's portrayal of Ryuk.

However, what truly struck me as the worst aspect of the movie was the directing and cinematography. The cinematographer must have gone to the Battlefield Earth school of cinematography because he was unable to keep his camera at a straight angle. Considering the consistency of those Dutch angles it must have been a conscious decision, but I have no idea who thought it would be a good idea. It looks amateurish and is wildly distracting. I love good cinematography, but if you're unable to make anything stand out positively, at least make sure that it doesn't stand out negatively either.

So a poorly paced, incomprehensible story, combined with poor acting and directing makes for a very poor film. To end on a positive note, I'll list the few things I did like. One, I really liked the musical score. It had a cool supernatural and mysterious vibe to it. I also really liked the design of Ryuk, as well as Willem Dafoe's voice to go along with it. Thirdly, I quite like the overall concept of the story, which cannot even be credited to the writers of this movie.

Still, those three points make me give Death Note a generous 3/10