evan_harvey Reviews

Dune: Part Two (2024)

Good, but shallow

[7/10 · 5 March 2024]

Dune part 1 was okay. Dune part 2 is better, but ultimately far more shallow. There's a lot more stuff that happens in part 2, but the core of the Dune story is lost.

I liked the film. The film looks great. The CGI is great. It's paced well, and it's an enjoyable ride. The actors all do a good job. Big scenes, neat visuals and so on. It has an "epic" feel, but it's only skin-deep.

There's barely any depth to the story you're seeing. Things/events obviously happen, but it's like it's a summary of a story rather than the story itself. There's zero tension or danger in the story - there are no stakes, no danger, no victory. The characters just do things but never seem to actually experience anything. There is no hardship, no loss, no vistory.

There are no thrills, because there is no danger. There are no stakes because Paul (and the Fremen) never lose. There is no victory because the audience never feels like the good guys might lose. There is absolutely nothing thought-provoking in the slightest. There are no philosophical ideas (unlike the source novel).

One review claims the film is "thought-provoking". Anyone who finds this film thought-provoking is literally braindead, and has never experienced actual thoughts. The same review claimed it was "THRILLING", using a scene where Dave Bautista escapes via a helicopter. I can tell you honestly that there were no thrills in that scene.

Paul joins the Fremen, and then instantly becomes a military leader. Even his trial of living in the desert is skipped. He never experiences any trials or danger. Events just happen with no build-up. There is no emotional connection to anything happening.

Unfortunately, it's ultimately all spectacle with no heart. The story is epic, the vistas epic, the everything is epic, except the story.

Dune (2021)

Okay, but oddly uncompelling

[7/10 · 5 March 2024]

It was okay. Good, but not great. I'm not really sure why, but I found it oddly uncompelling.

There was very little backstory to the whole story. Aside from an out-of-place voice exposition right at the start about the spice, there is nothing about why, and we certainly don't see it's importance in the functioning of the empire itself.

There is not enough set-up as to why the spice is important, why Leto Atriedies is picked for this assignment (and why he is betrayed), what the Bene Gesserit breding program is and so on.

The elements are technically all there, but they're included as minor bits of information, rather than showing these elements of the story.

It's a decent film, but lacking in backstory, context and depth.

Argylle (2024)

Just rubbish

[5/10 · 11 February 2024]

So Henry Cavill is essentially just a cameo role, and we're stuck with the terminally uncharismatic Sam Rockwell. Once you figure that out, the film sinks like a gigantic stone.

It would have been so much better if the film had had Henry Cavill as the good looking, but dumb-luck spy. Having him in a completely pointless cameo role is just stupid.

Honestly, the film would've worked so much better.

As it is, this film blows, for the following reasons:

1. Sam Rockwell is just dull and uncharismatic in this role. BDH is okay.

2. It's basically a re-telling of The Long Kiss Goodnight. Once you find that out, the film relies on pointless uber-CGI scenes, which drag on way too long, and frankly suck.

3. The end scene linking it to the King's Men films is self-indulgent crap. Those films (aside from the first one) suck.

4. The director apparently said: "he needed someone who was born to play James Bond - which Henry is - and then nick him before Bond's studio did." AND THEN WASTED HIM IN A S#! T ROLE THAT WAS POINTLESS. F you Matthew Vaughn.

5. Samuel L Jackson seems content playing these sad eccentric roles. The weirdness of the role in King's Men, and now a retired CIA director in a barn in France? Like, why?

Meh. 5/10. Not worth the cinema ticket.

Blue Beetle (2023)

Dull, boring and derivative

[4/10 · 1 October 2023]

Dull, boring and derivative. In short, Blue Beetle sucks. While it's great to have the world's first Hispanic super-hero, it's a shame it has to arrive via this s#!t film.

From charmless characters to a convoluted storyline, the whole film just drags.

The lead actor - Xolo - is completely uninspiring. Bruna completely lacks a personality. The sister comes across as a complete jerk. The others have the standard Hollywood superhero nothingness, just one dimensional fillers. Presumably they thought that the heavy emphasis on family etc would fill in the gaps, but yeah nah. Didn't at all.

The director tries to infuse lots of synth music, but the film never pulls it off right. The plot is both standard and completely sucks. There's nothing new here, folks.

Superhero movies saturate the cinemas, and while Marvel has a good run, the DCEU is trying to get started a decade too late. James Gunn might make okay movies, but I doubt he's up to the challenge that rebooting the DCEU will take.

Skip it. You won't regret it.

The Flash (I) (2023)

Ezra Miller sucks, but The Flash is great

[9/10 · 19 June 2023]

So yeah, Ezra Miller is a horrible person, but The Flash is a great film.

And yeah, some of the CGI is really bad, but who cares? It's only bad at the start (mostly), but it's just a set-piece rather than a critical scene. There's a few other bits as well, but it's not that bad.

The plot is very much "fan service", but it does it well. Some funny cameos and some smart plot twists and choices. I liked how it re-wrote some of the past (like Man of Steel), but did it well.

The time-travel; bit is a bit wonky science-wise, but it works well, and wraps itself up neatly.

Ezra Miller does well at The Flash, but he probably won't be back in the role (which is fitting given his despicable actions). Who knows if there'll be more of The Flash.

Best DC film of the DCEU so far. It's still not as smooth as Marvel films, but it's also a bit more raw, a bit more risky and overall more interesting. If they can iron out the shaky parts while keeping the tone more serious and less cartoony, then hopefully the DCEU will come good.

Mafia Mamma (2023)

Worst. Movie. Ever

[1/10 · 30 April 2023]

You know those films where the jokes don't land, the writing is trying way too hard, and the actors are just the worst?

This film is like a car crash that lasts for 2 hours. It just flat out sucks so hard. It was agony to watch.

Nothing in this film works. The story is pathetic. The jokes are sh#t. The acting sucks. Did I mention that the the story is pathetic? You just know some useless writer was sitting in the bathtub one day and went "I've got it! Legally Blonde, but it's the mafia!"

Then, even worse, they got some studio to front up millions of dollars. And some poor schmuck to direct it.

Surely, when you're making a film that is truly sh#t, someone on the crew must be thinking "Wow. This is a really sh#t film." But I guess you can't say that without losing your job - maybe that crew member should send an anonymous letter to the studio: "FYI, this film is sh#t".

Make you wonder just how truly bad Batgirl must've been to get cancelled, yet they released this sh#t.

Unbelievable.

The Tick (2001–2002)

Everything just clicks in the right weird, offbeat way

[8/10 · 21 February 2023]

The Tick was one of those shows, one of those once in a generation shows, where everything just kind of clicked in the right weird, offbeat way. It was never destined to be uber-popular or mainstream, but it had the right actors, the right characters, and the right writing (mostly).

All the actors did amazing performances. Patrick Warburton is just fantastic as the Tick. Real physical comedy with a great goofy style. Nestor Carbonell turned in a truly hilarious performance as Batmanuel. David Burke and Liz Vassey as Arthur and Liberty were spot on as well.

It's the kind of show they'll probably never be able to make again, so ditch the remake, and settle in for some lighthearted (but full of heart) craziness with The Tick.

Prey (I) (2022)

It was okay, but not great

[6/10 · 3 September 2022]

The good: The concept was great - a Predator in frontier America. Native Americans and French trappers.

The bad: While it's nice to see a female-led action film and while women were sometimes warriors in Native America culture, it's very unlikely that Naru would be a so much better fighter than all the other male warriors - who aside from her brother were basically useless. No one was any real match for the predator except for one girl. The "warriors" of the tribe were all teenagers as well. Where were the actual warriors?

The film had to set up that she was a better warrior than everyone else, but the men all looked down on her. She was also smarter than all the men, but none of the men believed her. And the Predator killed all the men (Comanche and French alike) easily, but not her - no, she completely kicked it's ass.

The greatest weakness in the film though was the lack of tension. The original film was basically the Predator hunting them the whole time. This film had the Predator hunting them effectively none of the time.

No film since the original Predator has really been any good. They've all sucked to varying degrees. Even the guy who was in the first one (Shane Black) couldn't make a good follow-up film. None of the sequels have had a tight story like the first film - Prey had the original writers onboard as producers and still couldn't get it right.

And the worst part was the Predator's aiming system. Like it didn't even know how it worked! It was so stupid.

It was a unique take on the Predator franchise at least, and quite watchable.

And finally, the final scene - all the male warriors have been slaughtered. A girl single-handedly kills the predator. And the whole tribe claps.

A Discovery of Witches (2018–2022)

Twilight fan fiction

[3/10 · 9 January 2022]

It starts out interesting, but within the first two episodes it turns into a Twilight clone. The main character is just another disappointing weak female character who seemingly cannot do anything without a man. It's got some good ideas, but it's so badly written and it squanders it's potential to be a classy supernatural tale for Twilight fan fiction.

The Matrix Resurrections (I) (2021)

Clever and unsatisfying

[5/10 · 27 December 2021]

It's like a fan-made film. Or one of those hated "Christmas specials" that no one actually wants, but the cast are contractually obligated to make. Lots of clever references to the original films, but it never delivers and you're left waiting for the good stuff to start. It made me remember why the first Matrix film was so great, and then made me sad that this film had none of that same magic, despite being almost beat-for-beat in some places.

It could have been a springboard to a new trilogy (or at least two films), but instead it introduced some neat ideas and then frustratingly just wasted them. Actually, it stomped all over it's potential and then spat on it's corpse. Those ideas could've been used much better than they were - a machine war, Neo and Trinity back in the Matrix (but why?), old characters, Zion replaced and a new focus on things.

Neo and Trinity are back, but the rest of the cast are generic and forgettable.

It had some action sequences, but they were dull and lifeless. There's none of the bullet-time stuff here (despite the name dropping). The direction was uninspired and messy. I kept waiting for even a glimpse of what made The Matrix so great - clean, amazingly filmed action sequences that were so, so cool, and of course a story that you could sink your teeth into.

Ultimately an unnecessary and odd vanity film that apparently cost $190M. Maybe Warner Bros thought they could squeeze some more cash of out the franchise, but I'd be surprised if it breaks even. At least it didn't retcon/wreck the previous trilogy, so we can just forget that this film exists. Your life will be better if you don't see this one.

Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)

Both Justice League films suck

[6/10 · 20 March 2021]

Is Zack Snyder's version better than Joss Wheedon's? Yes and no.

Yes - it's got more content (but it's still exactly the same film). Some of the extended scenes are better, as well as some of the ones that got cut. The extended extra scenes help give the film more depth, especially since it's in the aftermath of Superman's apparent death.

The 4 hour run-time wasn't bad, although I'm not sure I want to watch it again.

No - it's exactly the same film - the extra bits don't actually change the film at all. It's obvious why WB wanted it changed - it would have sunk at the cinema. So they got Wheedon to basically trim it. He kept the main scenes, re-filmed a few parts and lightened the colour.

Did Wheedon do a good job? Not really, but chances are he did the best he could with what he had. He re-shot a few bits, added some extra dialogue and turned a long, muddled film into a shorter, muddled film.

Aside from a few extended scenes in the Snyder version, it's 90% the same film. Apparently Wheedon used only 10% of what Synder shot, which sounds like the Synder cut should be some amazing film with lots of stuff never seen before. It's really not. It's exactly the same film with more stuff in it - yes, there's stuff you've never seen, but it's either extended scenes or a little more backstory. The parts that Wheedon re-shot are only bits and pieces, and really just additions/extra dialogue to what Snyder already had.

The ending of Snyder's version is better, and the inclusion of Darkseid - like most of the Synder version, it gives more/better context. Wheedon's ending was more muddled and random. Steppenwolf's weird head still annoys me in both versions.

The bottom line is that Justice League is still the B-grade Marvel Avengers. The corny Wonder Woman guitar riff still sucks. Cyborg is a lame character. He's got more backstory in ZS's version, but it's still rushed and ultimately empty. The Flash still has 90% the same lines, although Wheedon added a few funny ones.

The story of Justice League is still weak and both film's badly written/plotted/paced. The story ultimately tries to cram too much in, which is probably more WB's fault than anything else. Rather than spending years building up individual characters, they tried to chuck them all into an ensemble film and skip the pesky character building.

It's worth seeing, but it's ultimately the same muddled film. It's in some ways better, and in some ways worse. The DCEU took the wrong approach in building their own cinematic world, and the result is/are these films.

Anon (I) (2018)

Almost brilliant

[7/10 · 31 October 2020]

Great concept, good pacing, flawed ending and wasted potential.

Great concept: no anonymity, everything and everyone is connected. No crime. Hacking people. Some really good ideas there. It went a bit too crazy with it at times, but overall it kept it together. It's a great look at a dystopian future. It's not a slick or as fleshed out as Minority Report, nor ultimately as well written, but it's a nice little interesting thriller.

Good pacing: it's more of a slow-burn style film. Nice world-building, nice technological milieu that has an understated realistic feel to it. Reminds me in a lot of ways of Gattaca and even Inception.

Flawed ending & wasted potential: the killer was doing it for what reason again? Going around killing people for what reason? No reason? That just sucks. What was the point?

There are lots of films like this: ones that provide no good reason for why something happens. No need to wrap everything up with a little bow, but at the end of the day, reasons matter. If a killer is seeking revenge, you can connect with that. If someone is trying to cover something up, you need to establish who and why.

The worst stories are ones where the villain shows up at the end and there's no clues, no logically satisfying reason why they were doing something. In some films it doesn't necessarily matter, but in a film like this where it's essentially a whodunit/thriller and you're focusing on who and (more importantly) why, it matters a lot. Having no reason makes the whole film suck hard. An anonymous killer on the loose in a world where no one can be anonymous. Murder mystery thriller that ends up going absolutely nowhere. Lame.

90% great, 10% completely s#!t.

Tenet (2020)

Loud, choppy, obscure and not as great as you want it to be

[6/10 · 22 August 2020]

***** Potential SPOILERS *****

Tenet follows the great Nolan tradition of really bad sound. It annoyingly loud and at times you can't hear what characters are saying. Nolan, fire your sound mixer. If you're mixing it yourself, fire yourself and get someone who knows what they're doing. Really s#!t work.

It's also really badly edited (whether that's strictly editing or the script itself, who knows?). Some scenes happen with zero segue, and then at other points the movie gets bogged down. Unfortunately it's hard to care about the characters and story. Everything is a bit too rushed, and you don't have time to really soak it up and enjoy it.

The time-bendiness is classic Nolan, but it's obscure and difficult to get a grasp on. Maybe the film will fare better with repeated viewings, but after a one-off watching it's potential tantalizingness is significantly diminished. Yes, there are some great things to ponder, but the core narrative of the story is buried so deep that it becomes a little ineffective. There is a reason for the time-bendiness, but it's obscured and to be honest I was a bit weary by the time it was all revealed.

The basic plot of the film is okay, but I didn't really dig the "inversion" part. It's clunky and odd. Some great ideas and scenes, but overall it was difficult to follow clearly.

Plus, the time-bendiness is never really explored in a way that lets you revel in it. Rather, it's hidden and revealed bit by bit which unfortunately means that you don't get to fully enjoy it.

There's no theme here, at least in the way that other Nolan films have; Inception was about redemption, Interstellar was about the power of love or something, the Prestige was about revenge etc etc. This one doesn't really have that. Not a bad thing, though.

The acting is okay, but Nolan never gives the audience time to settle in. The relationship between Washington and Debicki's characters seems to be important, but why? Who knows? Neither character is given time to answer that question sufficiently.

This is really the main problem here. The pacing of the film is a bit all over the place, and it's hard to get involved with it. It jumps about from scene to scene at times with no explanation. I mean, I was able to follow it, but a few times I was asking "What are they doing and why?" and it took a while to understand (I'm not talking about the time-bendiness here either), which really diminished the film. In one scene, they're trying to get to a particular character. Why? You don't know till the scene is halfway finished. So instead you just sit there and watch them do some admittedly neat action scenes, but it's undermined because I have no idea what the goal is.

Overall, it's okay. It spends too much time trying to hide it's big reveals for them to be effective, and it's too rushed/badly paced to get into. I hope that repeated viewings (on Netflix) will make it better.

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker (2019)

Muddled, disjointed and unsatisfying

[4/10 · 12 May 2020]

Haven't even finished watching it on Disney+ and already I am lamenting the complete waste of potential.

The main problem (in my opinion) with all three of the latest Star Wars films (the main ones) is the lack of narrative and plot.

Rogue One was the last Star Wars film that they made. We'll never see anything like it again (probably). Solo was complete trash, just incredibly dull and hideous.

The Force Awakens was a complete rip-off of A New Hope. Shameless and also really disappointing.

The Last Jedi's central plot point was a small spaceship outrunning a bigger spaceship by going slightly faster than it.

The Rise of Skywalker is a muddled jumble, lacking any real narrative focus. Apparently the Sith have a new massive army... that does nothing. Kylo Ren wants to take over the galaxy... until he doesn't. Everything in the film is cheap and poorly written.

The whole trilogy has wasted so many really good ideas and there's clearly been no coherent leadership at the helm from Disney. Each film goes in different directions and nothing really joins up properly. Characters are important in one film, and then not mentioned in another. Plot directions in one are discarded in another. They've made a bunch of money, but hopefully they're not fooling themselves that they've created anything special. The originals are classics; these are just more bland entertainment. All of the virtue signalling and agendas that has been half-assed into the new films are just distracting and ultimately pointless.

Ben Solo turning into Kylo Ren - that would've been the perfect way to start the series. Introduce the new characters and link them to the past (Luke) and then move on with a new story. Have Luke training an apprentice, and then have Snoke lead him astray. Introduce Rey and give her a reason why she might turn to the dark side. Use that as the basis for her and Kylo throughout the trilogy.

Kylo Ren and Rey - Kylo clearly has a major hard on for Rey (he keeps offering to take over the galaxy with her and she keeps turning him down). But! there's no hint of Rey possibly turning to the dark side, so the whole thing is pointless. And why does he want her at all? There's been no chemistry or even hint of attraction between them, so why? What happened to the "anger is the path to the dark side"? They threw away all of the original Star Wars good stuff, but never replaced it with anything in return.

As an aside, Daisy Ridley always looks sweaty. I am not sure what's going on there, but still...

The characters have no arc to their stories. No development. No setbacks and no growth. Rey starts as super powerful, and that's it. She never needs to learn anything, never needs to struggle to become something new - the literal most basic aspect of life. Kylo is pure evil (even murdered his own father) til the very end and then he isn't for no good reason (apparently because Leia sacrificed her life for his - that's not a good reason).

Look, they're okay, but mostly they're boring. The plot jumps around and never really forms any sort of story. There's no stakes, no danger. The originals had a story that was clean, simple and focused. The new ones are muddled, disjointed and ADHD.

Another Life (2019–2021)

When quality is not your focus

[1/10 · 30 December 2019]

Terrible. Crap. Complete crap.

I hate tv shows like this that eschew competent writing for amateurish rubbish.

A mission to find aliens crewed by emotional idiots. Don't bother with professionals who know what they're doing, just get together some moronic millennials who act completely unpredictability. That's how you plan these things.

Don't bother with sensible protocols. Just lift your visor up on an alien planet because the air looks breathable. Don't worry about contamination or anything.

Complain about everything. Don't bother with any sense of duty or concept of a command structure.

It's so colossally stupid and so poorly written. It's a shame that people watch and enjoy this crap, thus eliminating the need to bother writing anything that is actually good.

Of course, that's what Netflix is counting on. It's like the new Star Wars films. Who cares if they suck? Who cares if the story is complete s&#t? It's all about money. Kids these days don't care if the story is competent, only that it's got SFX.

Another Life is in the same boat. Netflix is throwing literal billions at anything and everything, and it shows. The production quality is usually pretty good, but the concept and writing are hideous.

At least it's not reality tv, but it's not that much better.

The Irishman (2019)

Long, dull, uneventful

[1/10 · 15 November 2019]

Remember Bugsy Malone? That gangster film where all the characters were kids?

Well, The Irishman is a gangster film where all the characters are geriatrics. At the start of the film, De Niro's CGI youthened character still looked like he's 50. They all do. They're old, fat, hunched, liver-spotted killers, even when they're supposedly young(er). It's weird.

The film just drags on and on and never really gets going. The plot is disjointed and never really tells a story or builds a narrative. Unlike Scorsese's classics like Casino or Goodfellas, this film really struggles to develop a story worth watching.

3.5 hours. $160M budget. Good Lord. At least this rubbish will be 'free' on Netflix soon. There's a reason no one else wanted it - it wasn't going to make any money at the cinema. Even the $13 you pay for Netflix is too much for this film.

In the Tall Grass (2019)

Literally terrible

[3/10 · 15 October 2019]

Vincenzo Natalie, who once wrote and directed the excellent film Cube, has now written and directed the terrible film In the Tall Grass.

It is nonsensical, and insults you with it's plot that you keep hoping will end in some amazing revelation but never does. It's the kind of film that has a potentially interesting/creepy/intriguing idea, but 30 mins in you see the thinness of the plot. Then it twists and turns a bit, nothing really makes sense, but you keep thinking it'll end in some great payoff that makes it worthwhile. I'm here to tell you that it does not.

It makes no sense. It's like a 13 year old wrote it. The tall grass is scary. Maybe it's trying to channel a little Children of the Corn, but whereas the original was a classic, this just outright blows.

Netflix is really lowering the bar on it's films these days. I guess that nothing is too #%&@ when you're just trying to pump out volume for the masses to watch.

Vincenzo ought to be ashamed of himself for not only directing, but also writing this swill.

Joker (I) (2019)

A grimy take on comic book films that misses it's potential

[7/10 · 3 October 2019]

DC has gone for that "gritty" dark style as opposed to Marvel's bright and colourful style. One outcome is that DC films have become dour affairs, and another is that Marvel films are very superficial when it comes to characters.

Joker continues in the DC vein, and hats off to Warner Bros for swinging for the fences with a film like this. It's a bold choice, but unfortunately it also falls short of said fence. At time of writing it has a 9.4 rating here and that is way, way to generous. This is a 7 rated film at best.

Joaquin Phoenix is great as the titular character. The overall story is good, if a bit hardcore, at least compared to most comic book movies. This really isn't a comic-book movie, despite having notable comic book characters. It's a very realistic take on the origins of the Joker, and on that note it's a great effort.

The real tragedy of this film is that's it's really close to being great, but falls short. The violence is a bit too realistic to be enjoyable in the way that James Bond, Mission Impossible or even Marvel films are. There's only a few violent scenes, but they're stripped back and raw. It definitely deserves it's hard R rating, but there's no fun either.

The world of Joker focuses tightly on Phoenix and the un-comfortableness of mental illness. The Joker's character is not unlikable for most of the film, but he is not likeable either. This makes the film watchable, but not necessarily enjoyable. Aside from some great cinematography and shots, there's no parts that you'll think back on and go "Wow, I'd like to see that again."

The problem with such a tight focus on the main character is that it eschews creating a setting for that character. With so many incendiary elements in today's world (Black Lives Matter, anti-capitalism, a sense of disconnection from each other etc) that could be mined for fuel, the writers chose the most unrealistic elements instead. Rather than creating situations that feel real for the characters to inhabit, the film instead chooses two-dimensional set pieces that fall flat and are unsatisfying.

To wit, most people do not go crazy at the drop of a hat. Take the 1992 LA riots. There had been simmering tensions for some time, and all it needed was a spark. When that spark came, the whole city exploded. The spark in Joker is both too weak to inflame a city, and too unnatural. The anti-capitalist sentiments are not allowed to fester with the audience, and thus the final settings in the film of the "revolution" are fake and unearned. If the writer's/director had done that simple thing of adding a little more context and meat to the Joker's world, it would have made the rioter's worship of a homicidal manic a little more understandable.

This film made me think of Taxi Driver, but with some notable differences. In that film, De Niro's Travis Bickle is an olden day incel, but is at least redeemed by a 'noble' act - saving Iris - however twisted his motives were. It presents both a character that most people wouldn't like, but manages to make him into a good guy, in only because he does what people wish would happen and he's better than the really bad guys.

Arthur Fleck by comparison is offered no such redemption. That would actually be okay if at least the world which he inhabits connected with us. Instead however, rich people are jerks, and the rioters are shown without any real context. They're rioting, but against what? Random anti-capitalism that we're supposed to recognise? There's always been rich people and poor people, but that's not what sets off riots. What sets off riots is (at least a sense of) injustice. There's certainly opportunism by some in those situations, but that comes after the fact.

Fleck's first victims did nothing worthy of inciting riots and mayhem - they were boorish jerks worthy of contempt, but not burning a city down. There have been riots and protests against capitalism in the real world, but they all have context. Random, un-contextualized mayhem is unsatisfying, especially in a film that goes to such lengths to delve into it's character's psyche. Maybe that was the point; the very people who torment Arthur are the same people who worship him at the end. Everyone is irredeemable and everything is chaos.

This is where the film truly failed for me though. The Joker as a realistic, insane, delusional character is a low-key take on the supervillain genre, but it works. I like that DC are going down the darker path. Is he an incel? I guess so. I can see how it could be construed to glorify horrific actions, but I really do think that those who claim that (the incel part, there's more than enough movie violence to inspire people everywhere) are reading into the film something that really isn't there. Senseless violence, yes, but not everything else (that I'm told) comes with the incel losers on Reddit. There's no violence towards women, no moralising on the excesses of sex in the media and so on.

So yeah, hard R. Realistic depictions of violence. A stripped back origin story. And completely un-enjoyable to watch. Taxi Driver was saved by Bickle's redemption, but his world was understandable. Fleck didn't need that redemption (since he is in fact a supervillain and quite insane), but his world is half-baked and lazy.

In the Shadow of the Moon (2019)

Had potential, but ultimately empty

[5/10 · 29 September 2019]

Bottom line, it sucks. Oh, it's alright, you'll get a half-decent evening watching it on Netflix, but it's frustrating to see a film like this just bottom out and fail. Sets up an interesting premise and then blows all it's potential. Don't get me wrong, it never manages to drag itself out of solid c-grade territory, due to a muddled and unpolished script, but the ending it so tediously weak that it makes the whole thing seem even worse.

It starts like it's potentially a horror film - mysterious gruesome deaths and whatnot, and some really bad acting from Michael C Hall. It's kind of bad acting all round, to be honest though. Then it starts to veer into sci-fi territory. Films like this that have a gimmick going on often tend to go one of two ways - it either is fantastic (like, say, Minority Report or Predestination) or really weak (like, well, this film).

Films like Minority Report take a central idea, and then build a great story around it. Predestination is all about the characters and the central idea almost takes a back seat. This film has an okay central idea but the building around it part just isn't any good.

After an interesting start it just kind of meanders along without really going anywhere. Toss in a few chase scenes and before you know it you're at the end. The plot just sort of happens without really drawing you in, which highlights the one-trick pony show going on. It doesn't offer you any clues for you to try and work out, and when the ending happens you just kind of shrug.

The writer had an interesting if cliched idea, but it's not enough on it's own to flesh out an entire film. Chuck in some superficial character stuff, a bit of man-goes-crazy obsession and before you know it, you've got a bad film.

And then, at the end, comes The Twist. Which in this case sucks, by the way. It's weak, it's random, it's unconvincing.

So how could it have been better? Well, the script needs some real work to lift it up a notch. The gimmick (ie, the mysterious murders) isn't enough. You need to create a story as well. This film never does that. The gimmick is everything, and ultimately drags the film down. Then unfortunately, the twist at the end is so general and vacuous that it's just a "meh" response.

Why does the main character go crazy? There's no connection for him to cause that to happen. It's completely impersonal, and therefore unreasonable.

The motivations of the antagonist are very bland. There's nothing to connect to there.

It doesn't really deserve it's 6.2 (at time of writing) rating. Low to mid 5 is where it belongs.

Rambo: Last Blood (2019)

It's an insult to Rambo films

[1/10 · 21 September 2019]

OMG. It's worse than you'd think it could be. Stallone is like, 79yrs old, but he looks like he's a hard alcoholic 130yrs old.

The plot is so weak. It's terrible. Think Taken, but with a geriatric old man and the work experience kid writing the script.

It's just complete trash. I mean, it's a Rambo film, so you know what it's largely going to be like. First Blood is actually really good. The second and third ones were rubbish, but at least enjoyable 80s rubbish. The last one was pretty bad as well, but at least it tried to have a plot and some action scenes.

There's nothing enjoyable in this one at all. Don't even bother with the dvd. Just skip it and remember how Rambo was before this tragic, hard decline.

John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019)

Completely terrible

[2/10 · 11 June 2019]

John Wick 1 was pretty good. A little uneven here and there, but some great style and energy.

John Wick 2 was over the top cartoonish, but pretty great. Unexpectedly continued the story in an interesting way. It expanded the whole "assassin's underworld" - they're every second person in NY - to ridiculous levels, but it was still pretty good. The plot didn't really get in the way of all the action.

John Wick 3 - bloody hell. Why? Why?! What were they thinking?

So yea, it continues the story, but in the most boneheaded way possible. John Wick is running - okay, cool. He has a marker?! Wow! I wonder if he'll use it to do something cool - no, he doesn't.

The High Table sends an adjudicator and punishes those who assisted John? I wonder if they'll fight back - no, they don't.

John Wick instead goes to the desert (where apparently - "the Elder" - the mysterious leader of the literally millions of assassins lives like some quasi-Egyptian/Arab Bedouin nomad king - does he have an internet connection out there?) and literally cuts his finger off to get a second chance to rejoin the assassin fraternity. Then when the characters he's sent to kill says "Hey, don't kill me. Fight against the High Table", John Wick says, "Oh yeah, great idea." While he's standing there with his finger cut off... #$%& me - how stupid can they make this story?

Like, literally, what the hell? The script is so completely retarded. It wrecks the whole film. It's all pointless - maybe that was the director's point?

John Wick 2 set the film up so well, and #3 just sh#ts all over it. Absolutely hated it. 0 out of 10, but I gave it 2 in the hopes that they fire the director and hire better writers for #4.

Aquaman (2018)

All the rubbish we dump in the ocean...

[4/10 · 20 January 2019]

... finally ended up in a movie.

It's entertainment, so really, people are going to like all sorts of things. But this one was big, loud, colourful and not great (to me).

Everyone is commenting on how Jason Momoa is having fun. I'd be having fun too if I was paid a couple of million $ to basically do nothing. Plus, when the film is a bad as Aqauman, what else was he going to do?

Aquaman probably worked as a comic but on the big screen, no so much. The story is okay, but drowns in the ludicrousness of being, you know, underwater. The film drowns in CGI. There's lasers underwater, armour underwater, flying around underwater - you get the idea. Admittedly, what else could you do with a character as lame as Arthur Curry? At least James Wan had a go at it. He failed, but whatever. It made a billion $, so he wins and the rest of humanity pays the price.

I think that it proves that CGI wins the kiddies over every time, regardless of how lame the story is, or even how lame the premise of the film is. Without the CGI, this film would still suck, it just wouldn't look as good.

The acting is okay, if the acting equivalent of watching wet fish are your thing. These days in films like this, you don't really need to act. You just stand there. You may have to jump around a bit, but that's all. The 'acting' part is not really required.

The story is bleached like today's coral, lifeless and cliched.

The CGI is numbing, like your eyeballs getting slapped with a million tiny wet fishes.

I'm sick over CGI, over-hyped comic book hero movies. Every Marvel film is the same. DC are at least different: they eschew even the semblance of story for bloated CGI.

Hey, I mean, I paid to go and see it too. But the difference is that I regret it.

Mortal Engines (2018)

Great film. Ambitious. Pace is a bit rushed.

[8/10 · 7 December 2018]

Great film. Never heard of it before. Really enjoyed it. Haven't read the books.

To be honest, going into films cold is great. If it turns out that you don't like it, chances it doesn't really make any difference; you wouldn't have liked it anyway. It also means that if you do like the film, it's even better. As it was, I really liked the film. Here's the skinny:

Great SFX. Everything looked amazing. No cheap CGI to be seen here. Some gorgeous scenes and good sets.

Story: requires a suspension of disbelief, plus it's a bit of an odd concept. Cities cruising around? Well, okay, if you say so. But once you deal with that, it's good to go. I also liked the little details; it's clearly a well-thought out world, at least at the city level. Good stuff. Great details in the background of what's going on.

The plot: Some familiar concepts, but well done. Interesting and different. The film felt really rushed (pace-wise), like they had a film and a half's worth of story, but decided that they could realistically only do one film. That's a fair decision to make for any film that's not Marvel (which is a whole nother side of the story - Marvel has been great, but combined with Netflix it's completely killed cinema). So it packs a lot in, and the film suffers a little from it. There's lots of things that aren't fully explained, but it works well. It gives you a few details and it's up to you to stay onboard. I'm not sure if they could have stretched it to two films, but I wish that they had.

Acting: Hera Hilmar is great as Hester. Robert Sheehan channels a little bit of a non-mentally-disabled Eddie Redmayne/Newt Scamander. There's a mild romance between the leads, which isn't developed due to the pace of the film, but they have good chemistry. Hugo Weaving is great as usual. The pace of the film means that character development is a bit thin, but the actors had enough to work with.

Overall: Great. Pleasantly surprised. Nice to see an ambitious film that isn't afraid to swing for the fences.

The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018)

Better than the American one...

[7/10 · 25 November 2018]

... but not as good as the originals.

Yes, yes, I know this an American produced film, and apparently a "soft reboot" (which it really isn't) but it's far closer in style to the original Millennium films. The US remake of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was completely unnecessary. I found The Girl in the Spider's Web felt much more like the Swedish originals, even if the plot was plain US trash.

The originals were about a small scale murder investigations ("Men who Hate Women"), sex trafficking in Sweden etc. This latest one, in typical American fashion, is about nuclear weapons. The novel it's based on was written by a different author (who is also Swedish), and maybe Larsson would've gone down a similar path. But it feels like it's jumped the shark. Nothing like writing a story about saving the world when you're out of good ideas.

Claire Foy isn't as charismatic as Noomi Rapace, but better than Roony Mara.

The new Mikhail Blomqvist isn't as good either, but he does okay.

Sunspring (2016)

All your film are belong to us

[1/10 · 16 November 2018]

It's a great idea. Get some computer program to write a screenplay.

The result? Weird, dull rubbish. It's hard to argue against because, technically, no one wrote it. Just a few weeks ago, some complete moron paid over $432k for an AI generated painting. If that's not a searing indictment against rich d#%kheads, I don't know what is.

This is kind of the same. It's got a certain novelty value, in that a computer was "trained" and then wrote this (it indicates that the "training" is pretty basic). It doesn't make any sense grammatically or narratively. Some reviews have described it as "hilarious and intense", which gives you an indication of the average level of intelligence out there. But we live in a work where the Kardashians are famous and popular, so it really should be no suprise.

It's worth watching because it's potentially the first of its kind. It's not worth a score of 5.7 (at time of writing).