Christopher_Reid Reviews

Transformers: The Last Knight (2017)

Bad

[14 September 2024]

So I put Age of Extinction on to watch in the background and actually found it pretty entertaining, more than I'd expected. The first three movies are decent, although they've dated already, but I never bothered after that. This one, though? It's surprisingly bad. Confusingly bad. Like, I don't understand the choices made.

Michael Bay has always been the much-derided director of loud, dumb, easy, formulaic movies. But hey, if he does it well, what's the problem? The Rock is pretty good. Transformers (2007) was up his alley and he did a good job with it, overall. The effects were impressive, the story was passable, there was some good action and humour, the sound effects were cool - it was pretty dope at the time.

Then the sequels kept repeating similar ideas and sequences. They tended to gradually get less inspired and fresh. But The Last Knight manages to be dumb and boring, rather than dumb but fun.

For one thing, there aren't enough Transformers. I want to see those big, crazy battles. I want all that metal, shooting, explosions, etc. But there isn't much of that. The plot is bizarre and has too many disjointed parts. I have no idea where the finale even took place - somewhere on Earth or another planet? No idea. The stakes? No idea about that either.

There's a young girl in this one who might well be a talented actress, but her acting is just too much. It's way too over-the-top. It's dull. We barely know her - we can't invest immediately just 'cause she cries a few times. That's not how character development works.

There's an annoying robot who's mildly amusing but just frustrating to watch when we could be seeing a giant robot turn into a truck or jet fighter or vice-versa.

There's a part where they go underwater, some parts on an alien ship - I have no clue what was happening. Sure, I wasn't paying much attention, but I don't think that's the reason! The movie made no sense but spent so long with exposition. We want comedy and explosions and Transformers - can't you just stick to that?

I don't know if this movie failed because Bay was too ambitious or just didn't care or if the script was terrible and the shoot was rushed. Or all of the above. This is a bad movie. The ending was so anticlimactic. Usually at least the last shot will attempt to have some sense of grandeur, coolness, closure - something! This movies just limps to a close and I know as little now as I did before the movie started. Did any characters die? I can't even remember. What was the coolest part? One or two jokes? An action part? Can't remember. Mark Wahlberg was likeable. But his dialogue sucked. Maybe he was the best part.

When this came out, it was the fifth best (live action) Transformers movie. If only they'd stopped making them, it would have retained that rank...

Terrifier 2 (2022)

Gory, mildly funny, but boring, slow and with nothing to say

[2/10 · 13 September 2024]

So I put this on to kind of watch in the background and check out a few scenes - I was curious based on the promotional material and an awareness of its extreme nature. At least now I have a feel for it but have no intention of "properly" watching it.

Art the Clown is mildly entertaining. The tone kind of works - he's playful and silly and then suddenly extremely violent. It's not too serious.

The gore is pretty explicit but hardly realistic. Body parts cave and break apart way too easily. People survive for way too long. It's gruesome but not really upsetting due to the obvious fakeness.

Some of the music was pretty effective and interesting, although it didn't really go anywhere. It's good at setting a mood and building some suspense, but it's not actually memorable beyond that. It's no Halloween or The Thing, not remotely comparable at all.

As for the plot, it seemed very slim although I skipped over much of it. The acting is pretty weak and the characters are uninteresting. The biggest weakness of the movie is how boring it is. For people who hate gore, even they will prefer the gory scenes as at least something happens!

For a very small group of people, I can see why this movie has some appeal. Over-the-top gore with an edgy, dark sense of humour. But for 95% of people, I think this is not worth your time. It's too silly to be taken seriously (and that undermines the suspense as well), too nasty, cruel and grotesque to be enjoyed by mature audiences.

There are just way too many far better options, with better effects, better acting, better story and characters, better everything. For horror comedy, Tucker & Dale vs. Evil is a million times better.

Godzilla vs. Kong (2021)

Some fun action scenes, a lacklustre plot, boring humans, no real weight

[5/10 · 6 September 2024]

So I've been watching a lot of movies in the background lately. The kind of films I had no intention of seeing, but at least think I'd like to see the big action parts and "give them a chance" so to speak.

This one was pretty average. So many blockbuster films feel the same these days. So formulaic. Some cool CGI and action here and there. A couple of funny characters. One or two memorable moments/images. But otherwise very uninteresting characters and plot. Nothing we haven't seen countless times before.

Godzilla vs. Kong does at least have some sense of fun. I did enjoy several parts in a very dumb way - mainly the parts with the 2 giant main characters. It just doesn't amount to anything. There are no real stakes, no real passion coming from the filmmakers, no innovation.

For example, compare it to trilogies like Nolan's Batman, LotR or Star Wars. All of those pushed the envelope in VFX, music, scale/epicness, costumes, set design, make-up, etc. Nolan's movies were also very mature and sophisticated in a lot of ways while the others develop so much rich lore and mythology.

GvK is like a cartoon for children in terms of having no ambition and no feeling of tangibility. The monsters and humans feel separate. At no point does it remotely feel like they're in the same world. It's like two different movies, or at least a movie shot in two separate locations with actors on each side who never met each-other.

Still, I didn't care that much. It was passable entertainment. If you like seeing giant beasts fighting while knocking over buildings, you may well like this movie. The humans are uninteresting but bearable. A little girl has lots of screentime and seems to have some deep connection with King Kong. It makes no sense - surely adults would be better at developing a language and rapport with a giant ape - but whatever. This movie offers loud, big action, not sense.

Transformers: Rise of the Beasts (2023)

Generic, mildly enjoyable, boring plot

[5/10 · 6 September 2024]

So I put this on in the background while doing some marking. I did try to give it a chance and it was enjoyable and engaging at times, but Rise of the Beasts is a very generic movie overall.

It's set in the 90s but doesn't really feel like it. I liked the musical references, mostly New York hip hop such as the Wu-Tang Clan, but a few songs and a Power Rangers shirt doesn't instantly transport us into another decade. You've got to get so many other things right - the clothes, the cars, the billboards, the way people talk, the references, the news/TV, etc. It's not easy.

The action is okay, but does nothing new. CGI just isn't that exciting by itself. You have to do something with it. There's creativity in the movement, the designs and the voices, but it's nothing special and not enough to lift a run-of-the-mill plot.

The black female character was a bit annoying and felt shoehorned in. It wasn't at all believable that she was some kind of archeologist. The main character was okay, but not all that compelling.

The villains could have been much better. Not enough of their motive was fleshed out and they didn't look that cool or interesting. Every robot has so many parts, a lot of metal and grey, so it all kind of blurs together.

This is not a terrible movie but it's very mediocre. Nothing offensively bad, but it's a lot of noise with little originality. Okay entertainment if you love Transformers and have absolutely nothing else to do.

Godzilla (2014)

Some cool moments but pretty boring

[5/10 · 12 August 2024]

Full disclosure: I didn't watch the whole thing but skimmed through the interesting looking parts, namely those with giant monsters.

Godzilla (2014) has some good aspects but doesn't really seem to fit together well as a whole. Some of the visuals are quite cool. Some of what I made out of the plot seemed reasonably interesting. Seeing giant monsters fight was cool. The effects were generally good although already dated a mere 10 years after the release date.

It's the human aspect which feels less interesting. You get this strong sense of actors in a studio with lots of green screen, seeing nothing, but being yelled at by the director "MORE! More EMOTION!" non-stop. Everything feels over-the-top and melodramatic. None of the reactions feel sincere. And I seldom cared about the reactions of the characters - I just want to see it and react for myself.

Much of the action felt a bit too chaotic. Rather than seeing people nearly get killed again and again, and buildings being toppled, I'd like to see some kind of coherent plan to deal with the monsters. Some key goals which have to be achieved, but it felt like a lot of the events were out of the hands of the main characters. And the world of the monsters and humans felt completely separate.

Also, the music was pretty lame and Godzilla just didn't feel that loud or menacing. The t-rex in Jurassic Park had a more iconic roar. The blue blast was pretty cool, but I was a bit unclear as to what it actually is or how powerful it is.

Other than a handful of memorable moments (meaning a 5 second shot here and there), Godzilla (2014) has already become pretty forgettable and meaningless, especially with the deluge of sequels with similar events.

The Other Guys (2010)

Very funny buddy cop parody

[8/10 · 12 August 2024]

This is a pretty good comedy movie, although not much more than that. Will Ferrell is a much better actor than I think he's given credit for. When he has the chance, with a decent script and character, some opportunities for improv, and someone like Wahlberg to play off of, he's hilarious. Many parts of this movie made me laugh out loud.

There are plenty of jokes, call-backs, running gags, etc., to fill the runtime. And the tone manages to find a good balance between grounded and completely ridiculous. A lot of it is nearly believable despite being absurd. No doubt there are people this incompetent, petty and childish in the real world, they just don't get away it like this.

Some opportunities are wasted. In particular, we could have seen more of Wahlberg's fighting skills - it felt like a loose end which didn't get paid off. And where other great comedies are elevated by either being social commentaries or a combination of genres, The Other Guys is a pretty vanilla comedy. It has no deeper aspirations.

But as pure comedy, it's very fun and entertaining. Easy to switch off your brain and enjoy. It plays with a lot of the tropes of buddy cop movies. And a lot of the ideas are milked pretty well without getting tiresome. I really wish they made sequels to this rather than so many of the other forgettable and much less inspired Ferrell movies.

Some of my favourite parts include Ferrel's hideous wife, Ferrel's improv about tuna and lions, Wahlberg's facial expressions at Ferrel's taste in music, etc., and Michael Keaton's unintentional TLC quotes.

Wrongfully Accused (1998)

Funny, second tier spoof movie

[6/10 · 26 July 2024]

I really enjoy the Naked Gun movies and many other spoof movies, and Leslie Nielsen in particular, so it made sense that I'd check out a movie like Wrongfully Accused eventually. Part of the delay was that it's clearly not as popular - I dunno if I'll bother with Spy Hard, for example.

But this movie is pretty funny and successful overall, although it's bit less inspired than other movies in the genre and, of course, it's very stupid.

Tone is very important in a movie like this and here it generally works. The actors take it relatively seriously, there are a fair number of gags and many of them are done well. I especially liked Nielsen struggling to recover after driving a bouncing car, a rush to get a car ready while the enemy readies a weapon and a train that's a little too hard to get away from.

There are many movie references and they're kind of funny, but more could have been done with them. This is not on the level of the Naked Gun series, or the Hot Shots movies, or Top Secret. But I actually prefer it over Airplane! - the original and still highly overrated spoof movie. The acting just wasn't good in that one and Nielsen didn't get to do much. It felt much more clunky and forced.

Wrongfully Accused was directed by Pat Proft - apparently his only film although he wrote on some of the other Zucker/Abrams movies, which shows. I like his sense of humour. A few of the ideas are really clever and well done. But not enough to make this a legitimately good movie. Some gags miss and some parts are comparatively boring or underwhelming. Still, I enjoyed it quite a bit and would recommend it to fans of the genre.

Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (1965)

Weird, kind of entertaining but not very likeable

[5/10 · 8 June 2024]

This is a weird movie. I'm not at all surprised that Quentin Tarantino apparently had plans to remake it at some point - it feels like his kind of movie and that it influenced him. It's kind of goofy in how bold it is. People say ridiculous lines but very seriously, the plot jumps around and dwells on seemingly irrelevant details, the trio of vixens behave as if they're still performing for an audience - us, I guess.

It seems hilarious that feminists have alternately liked or disliked this movie at different times. I never feel like I know what role women actually want in society or how they want to be represented. It's such a fine line between empowerment and exploitation - they almost seem to come hand in hand.

Ultimately, though, I think this movie fails because it just doesn't have a solid enough throughline. The plot is too silly. The characters aren't that likeable. The visuals, both the women and the overall cinematography, aren't enough to carry the film.

I do like movies that have antiheroes and which have unexpected twists and turns. I strongly see the connection with Taratino there, especially in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. But something has to hold it together.

Tarantino plays with his audience, but he rewards us. Maybe his movies aren't ultimately serious, but they're entertaining, well-crafted, with memorable and funny dialogue and situations. Pussycat shows promise at the start but starts to devolve and never recovers. I just don't really like the main 3 women. They're killers after all. And not in some darkly humorous way.

The other characters aren't sufficiently virtuous, smart or interesting to rescue the movie. This is a case of someone promising to show you something cool and then letting you down. It's superficial and it's not like it's a cool kind of self-aware superficial commentary on exploitation. I think the movie Funny Games is more effective at analysing or exposing the voyeuristic notion of horror and suspense movies. Why do we enjoy seeing people scream, die, fight, etc?

This is not a terrible movie, but it's not good either. The quality of film-making is okay, but it's unashamedly a shock or exploitation movie. It aims to a get a big reaction, but I've seen much more violent, sexual and silly movies. It does have a quirky appeal to it, some odd or funny parts, a little bit of a story and people to root for, but not enough to lift it out of being immature and pointless fluff, for the most part.

City Slickers (1991)

More of a drama than a comedy

[6/10 · 8 June 2024]

I've only really seen Daniel Stern in the two Home Alone movies and this. His performance as Marv is hilarious so I thought maybe this movie would also be really good. Ironically, it confirms that Stern is a very good actor, thought in many ways more as a dramatic actor! A couple of scenes in particular are quite rough and Stern's performance feels very real.

I did generally enjoy City Slickers, but it's very much a comedy/drama, with similar amounts of both. It generally works, but I found it a bit tame, especially in terms of comedy. The dramatic aspects were much more effective, although they leaned heavily on cliches. This feels like a Disney movie by the time the credits are rolling, and that's not completely good or bad.

Helen Slater feels wasted, as do some of the other supporting characters. It seems like a lot more hijinks could be had, but it's like they didn't want to break the realism too much? Or got too caught up in less interesting subplots like a couple of bullies causing problems.

I really like Billy Crystal in Monsters, Inc. But I haven't seen much else with him. He's funny and has charm, but it can also become grating. He's a little too paranoid and whiny for my liking. In a way, that's the point - he's having a mid-life crisis and looking for meaning. Looking for an adventure. Again, the dramatic aspects of his arc worked better than the comedy.

Based on all this, I wish the movie tried to actually be a grand western and really embrace its sadder elements. Let us see the beauty of the landscapes, let us feel the yearning of the characters for more meaning and happiness in their lives. It could have been a serious and mature movie, with touches of comedy. These are big themes to explore which a lot of people can relate to. The comedy ends up feeling awkward and half-hearted.

I'm surprised that Jack Palance won an Oscar for this movie. His performance was fine and he seems like a good actor, but the character feels quite trivial. More of a cliche - just some tough old guy who isn't quite as bad as he seems. Maybe the Academy were trying to also recognise some of his earlier work? I did like his advice about the 1 thing that matters in life.

In the end, City Slickers was fine. A hybrid comedy, drama, family film, not breaking any barriers, full of tropes, with a handful of touching or sad scenes and a few laughs here and there. Harmless, but not exciting. I was hoping for more, I think they played it too safe. Not that many movies really explore mid-life crises and in particular men who lack direction and break down. It was a missed opportunity to be a pretty special movie.

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

Great cast, good dialogue, fast paced, but a bit aimless

[7/10 · 8 June 2024]

I didn't know anything about this movie going in, just that it was vaguely a "drama". It feels a bit like a thriller or a play. Almost like Reservoir Dogs. A small, exclusively male cast, amazing actors, lots of intense moments, all in only one or two settings over the course of a day or two. It's pretty gripping, but I'm not sure how meaningful it is.

One issue is that I'm not sure how I'm meant to feel about the characters or who I'm meant to relate to. They're all likeable in some ways, unlikeable in others. They're high stakes salesmen. Lots of pressure on them, but they essentially relay that pressure onto their potential buyers. I empathise with their predicament of having to meet deadlines and get things sold, but I don't really like their methods.

I suppose that's the point - how cut-throat the sales business is. So it's a critique then? But the irony is that it kind of glorifies these salesmen. It's hard to dislike people like Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Jack Lemmon, etc. They have charisma, presence, etc. Maybe it's Stockholm syndrome, but you want them to succeed. And yet, some of the tactics they use are pretty dirty or even despicable.

This movie feels like more of a short thrill ride than any kind of deep analysis or commentary. The acting is great, the writing is sharp, but it's kind of just a day in the life of these people, rather than any kind of profound statement. Maybe more can be read into it. Maybe a second viewing would bring out more details, subliminal messages or clues, etc.

It seems funny to me that someone the caliber of Alan Arkin is perhaps the 6th best actor in the film. That's pretty crazy. But the scenes feel a little haphazard. Interesting, edgy, sometimes funny or intense, but also disjointed. I found I didn't care all that much what happened. None of the characters are that appealing. The strict higher-ups, the slimy sales guys or even their rich, at times naive, customers.

A good movie, but missing something to make it really stand out as great.

Top Secret! (1984)

Hilariously stupid, stupidly hilarious

[9/10 · 30 April 2024]

I'd seen parts of this movie years ago and decided to rewatch it. It's great. Probably one of my favourite comedies now.

This movie is a reminder of the dynamic between stupid and genius - that fine line we learn about in This Is Spinal Tap. In comedy, stupid and genius often overlap heavily. Good comedy tends to be weird, crazy, stupidly obvious, but also clever, creative and unexpected.

The gag might be simple, but choosing to do something so stupid and committing to it is another story. Top Secret! Has some of the most gloriously dumb but also laugh-out-loud hilarious sequences I've ever scene. My stomach was hurting and I was still bursting out laughing more.

I think it works for several key reasons. One is that the actors are all taking it very seriously. If this is a wacky, immature comedy, nobody seems to realise it. Nobodies playing for laughs, they think this is a real Bond or Elvis movie and that makes every joke so much more effective. Seeing moronic events but with complete sincerity.

Along the same lines is the commitment the filmmakers show to every joke, no matter how stupid. Even if it makes no sense, even if it feels too obvious, too silly, they go for it. Even if that then requires building large props or underwater sets or other expensive processes, they commit to each joke. It makes it funnier to me how much effort went into such juvenile ideas.

In a sense, they're wasting our time, but that's part of what I find hilarious about it. Like, "yes, this is obviously so fake that even a 5-year-old would realise, but we're gonna do it anyway and pretend that it makes sense".

Val Kilmer is likeable in the main role as are most of the supporting cast. The only major weakness is the anticlimactic ending. Ironically, I was more drawn into Top Secret! Than most straight, serious movies.

I think I realised something about movies - it's not how "real" they are, it's how well-crafted they are, how much time and effort went into them and how much respect for the audience. That's what determines how much you care.

You can tell that a lot of effort went into Top Secret!. The directors clearly like their jokes. They're proud of them. They put a lot in. They've seen a lot of movies and know how to play with our expectations. They're not afraid of obvious jokes as long as they fit and are well executed. For example, the guy called Deja Vu who seems... vaguely familiar.

So by the end, I really wanted them to blow up the bad guys, I wanted a big finale. But alas, it kind of abruptly stops. Yes, it's hilarious, but too sudden and underwhelming. I wanted some big explosions, crazy death scenes, an over-the-top happy ending, etc. Then it would have been a 10.

But as it is, this is one of the best spoof movies ever made. No, it's not "intelligent" in the conventional sense. But it does show a lot of insight and creativity. Consider the scene filmed in reverse - most of the time it's hard to tell. That's not easy to pull off and it creates some great visual effects, reminding me of Tenet.

It's this casual mixing of genius and stupid which endears Top Secret! And similar movies like the Naked Gun series to me. They embrace dumb ideas as if they're brilliant. Almost every joke landed for me and hence, I can forgive the weaknesses - I'm too busy laughing at the last joke to care. And there's enough normal plot to enjoy this as a normal movie, albeit a silly one. There's a bit of action and romance in between the laughs, but mostly just a tonne of laughs.

Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993)

Pretty bad

[4/10 · 30 April 2024]

My goodness, the jokes in this movie are horrendous. Absolutely terrible. I love comedy, I love stupid jokes, I enjoy good parodies (like Top Secret! Which I recently watched), but Men in Tights is one of the lamest movies I've ever seen.

For a 5-year-old, this might be an incredibly funny movie. But for an adult, every joke is so tediously slow, so obvious, so telegraphed and so mediocrely executed that it's honestly painful to sit through. The quantity of jokes is also lower simply because each one takes so long and there's only ever one at a time.

Whereas great comedies have layers of humour - funny characters, a funny concept or situation, funny visual gags, ironic choices in music/costumes/set, jokes in the background, verbal jokes, facial expressions, etc. - Men in Tights seems to operate mainly at one or two levels and always in linear fashion, as if we don't want to overload the viewer with too much in this already extremely thin spoof of Robin Hood.

The pacing is also very slow, as in, the editing itself. This makes a huge difference. People finish their line and we linger on them for another second or two rather than cutting. It feels like an eternity so you've already worked out the punchline even if you were barely paying attention.

Despite all this, I don't hate Men in Tights. Cary Elwes is just too likeable. And the movie is harmless. Some of the jokes, maybe 20%, "land" in the sense that they're at least mildly amusing.

I can forgive a movie for being dumb if it's also smart and creative - if there are lots of ideas, mixed in together, good performances, some actual talent, etc. But this movie is mostly just dumb. I can picture children telling each-other about how funny this movie is only to get bored of it a few years later.

It's frustrating because the cast seems to have talent and Brooks has made decent spoofs before - I remember liking Young Frankenstein a lot and generally liking Blazing Saddles. This movie feels safer, lazier and more tired. Maybe Brooks was less inspired? Held back for some reason? Just getting old and less funny?

Almost every joke could have been easily replaced with a better one, tightened up, executed better or built upon. I spent more time sighing and cringing than laughing.

At least the movie was mildly fun in a general sense, Elwes carries it, some of the supporting cast are at least trying and there's nothing in it that's actively annoying, other than the terrible quality of the jokes themselves. I don't think I could bare the awkward silence of watching this with someone else. It could have been so much better...

A typical quality joke is that a character is named Will Scarlet (wait for it) O'Hara. That's the entirety of the joke. A Gone with the Wind reference. And yet the movie spends about 30 seconds on it. Nothing else, just that name. No joke, no running gag, nothing. Just a name reference. If cringe causes you pain, stay away from this movie at all costs.

The Hunt (2012)

Impactful and intense but ultimately frustrating

[7/10 · 16 April 2024]

I went into this movie knowing very little - only that it's in the IMDb top 250 with a high rating. It turns out the subject matter resonates with me a lot - what if an innocent man is accused of molesting a child? Having worked as a teacher for many years, I've seen firsthand some of the mess caused by the way child abuse accusations tend to be handled. There's a lot of bureaucracy, paperwork and paranoia rather than concrete facts and reasoning.

It's a frustrating topic for me because it feels like society has lost its way. Punishments for criminals are often way too tame, instead intellectuals insist on "rehabilitation". Meanwhile, the standards for evidence have gone way too low, so that a single claim by one person can potentially get someone locked up. Jagten explores this issue from the point of view of someone innocent being accused and the way a whole town seems to turn against him.

While the acting is very good, the movie is ultimately unsatisfying. It's just too frustrating. Maybe that's the point and maybe a movie has more power when it doesn't try to offer "answers". When it doubles down on its theme and stays with you after the credits roll. But plenty of things already make my blood boil, I don't need a work of fiction to be added to the list.

I believe in logic - I have a maths background. Things don't just "happen". Morals aren't complicated. The intricacies of who knows what and who makes what decision on what basis - that can be complicated. Just as the rules of chess are simple but the gameplay and implications are very complex.

And in Jagten, there are clear heroes and villains. People make baseless assumptions. It doesn't matter how severe a crime is, unless you have solid evidence that it actually occurred or that someone did it, you shouldn't be jumping to conclusions or taking severe actions.

Maybe that's the point - how stupid people can be. They let the emotion of an idea take them over and they no longer question the facts, the reality. For many religious people, the promise of god and heaven is so nice and the fear of hell so great that they'll do extreme things in real life to affect their outcome in the after life. That can be very dangerous. The same with socialists who are often willing to "break some eggs to make an omelette" - people dying is a small price to pay for a Utopia down the track.

It's the same fallacy here. Child abuse is such an evil crime that many people stop thinking once you mention it. They just grab their pitchforks. The other major issue is false positives. That's annoying because there are plenty of ways to avoid that - in particular, don't lead the witness! Don't plant ideas in the accuser!

And of course, the character who makes the accusation does so because she saw something - but the movie barely touches on that issue or the people responsible.

The other thing is that Jagten isn't exactly fun to watch. It's well-acted, it's thought-provoking, it gets under your skin, but it doesn't actually say that much. I want some sense of justice or consequence. And I don't really enjoy dwelling on a topic like this, especially when so many of the characters are so stupid and refuse to communicate.

I think there are so many things which can be done to help protect children, for example looking at the track record of individuals, hidden cameras, raising children well and letting them open up, but it seems a lot of society have already gone too far down an opposite path. All men are suspects. Any accusation should be treated as true. Meanwhile, those actually found guilty should be protected or hidden! People who do lots of bad things just move on and nobody knows about their history.

Mads Mikkelson is the stand out here. It's a very good performance. But I feel that the movie doesn't do enough to make full use of it. I mean, you could watch a movie of someone being tortured for 2 hours. Even if the acting was phenomenal, practically real, does that make it worth seeing? That's essentially what Jagten is.

I was hoping Jagten would have some insights about human nature and various systems - schools, courts, gender dynamics, parenting, siblings, etc. Plenty of bad teachers, parents and others go under the radar while the paranoia surrounding child abuse often inconveniences or impacts good people. Jagten powerfully captures this, but doesn't seem to try to offer insight, wisdom or even critique.

The Kentucky Fried Movie (1977)

Way too many misses, mildly amusing, shows the potential of ZAZ

[4/10 · 14 April 2024]

Sure, sketch comedy is often hit-and-miss, but KFM mostly misses, unfortunately. The concept is fine, the energy is there, but there are too many weaknesses - lame jokes and ideas, bad acting, slow editing, repetition of jokes, etc.

In particular, the middle section, a spoof of Bruce Lee kung fu movies, is way too long and only has a handful of decent jokes. When the Lee imitator mouths "WTF" as a guy gets back up, that was pretty hilarious. But one funny moment out of 30 minutes of screen time isn't worth it.

Some of the jokes had good potential, like the zinc oxide bit and the cinema experience with in-your-face sensations, but even they aren't executed all that well. The Zucker/Abrahams trio shows some of their potential but they clearly have a long way to go. Even Airplane! I don't like that much because the main actors are weak (not Nielson and Stack but the romantic duo) and so many of the jokes are incredibly lame.

It seems that ZAZ got a lot better later on. I loved Top Secret when I recently rewatched it, which is what drew my interest to this movie. It was entertaining enough, some okay laughs here and there, I sincerely enjoyed the feeling of a movie without rules or limits, a la Monty Python, but it's just not polished enough comedically for me to recommend it. It's a failure, mildly worth checking out if this kind of humour is up your alley.

Dune: Part Two (2024)

Amazing music and visuals, frustrating plot aspects

[10/10 · 20 March 2024]

I have to start with the main strengths of this movie: the audio/visual aspect. I mean, movies are all about images and sound, so that's what should matter, right? Well Dune: Part Two is one of the most incredible looking and sounding movies I've ever seen. It really is otherwordly. It's full of ideas, boldly expressed.

However, movies aren't just about the audio/visual parts, there's also acting, plot, story, themes and meaning, etc. Not to mention the pacing, cinematography and other specific decisions. This is where Dune 2 has some frustrating flaws, in my opinion.

Let's start with the cast. Most of the actors are great. Chalamet is a rising star. Veterans like Brolin, Bardem and Skarsgård are really good, as is Bautista. Zendaya is less impressive, but not too bad. Butler was very interesting as Feyd Rautha. The main casting issue was Christopher Walken who feels out of place. The Emperor just comes across as "some old guy". Is that what Villeneuve was going for? An anticlimax?

The plot is frustrating in many ways. The main issue for me is ambiguity. It's fine to have ambiguity as you build up a mystery. You draw the audience in, you leave us wondering, you keep options open. Fine. But eventually we need answers. Concrete answers. Maybe those answers raise more questions, but at least we get some answers!

In Dune, the mystery is whether Paul is really "the one", "the messiah", or not. Fine. Build up the mystery. But 2 movies in, and after many major events, we need to know - is he "the one"? What does that even mean?

It's annoying because half the Fremen seem to blindly believe in Paul. They already worship him. Meanwhile, the other half of the Fremen scoff and laugh at the idea. They dismiss it as some rumour created by the Bene Gesserit centuries ago.

But which is it? What exactly did the Bene Gesserit plant on Arrakis? What did they say about the Messiah? Did they say that he'd be a skinny guy called Paul? Did they describe him physically, or just vaguely said a messiah would come one day? If Stilgar is convinced that Paul is the one - WHY? If others are sceptical - WHY? Without any explanation, I'm left to feel that both groups are stubborn and stupid - they've already made their choice and it's not actually based on any concrete evidence. This makes the whole story feel superstitious and superficial.

What about the Bene Gesserit - what do they actually believe? They seem to anticipate "the one". Or is he a messiah or is it Lisan al Gaib or the Kwisatz Haderach? Are these all the same thing or are they each different? Do they know a messiah is coming or is it wishful thinking? What is it based on? If they spread rumours on Arrakis, then based on what? Did they base the ideas on what they truly know or believe, or did they just make it up? If Paul fits those predictions, isn't that significant? Did they just happen to describe a random guy centuries in advance by coincidence?

Because it's unclear, I end up being less invested. I don't know or care anymore whether Paul is the one because I have no idea what it even means. I don't know what the clues are meant to be or what his powers or role are meant to be. This is a major failing of the movie. And it's a stupid cliche, to keep the mystery going, while undermining the mystery built up so far. We need some kind of resolution! He survived drinking that blue liquid - how? What does that mean? Nobody clearly explains any of it!

Another issue is the undermining of the villains. Rabban is too hot-headed and it makes him less interesting. All of a sudden he's raving and angry, randomly killing assistants and shouting that the Fremen are "rats". He comes across like a petulant, angry child, not a fierce and powerful leader or warrior. It reminds me of Kylo Ren, which is about as unflattering a comparison as possible.

Feyd Rautha is interesting, visually and in terms of his voice and demeanor. However, he also seems a bit underwhelming. So he's good with a knife? That's it? He also seems to need to kill people for fun? Okay, that's creepy, but it also shows a lack of control. The T-1000 effortlessly killed people, but only when necessary - he had nothing to prove. Vader killed people, but mainly to intimidate and keep them in line, not as a weird fetish.

Also, Rautha is easily seduced by a Bene Gesserit lady, which implies he lacks self-control. Moreover, we learn that he usually fights against drugged opponents, suggesting that he's not actually that strong a fighter - he needs special treatment to win.

Another issue is Villeneuve's style. On the one hand, I admire his patience and unique way of doing things. But it's a little too far removed from traditional movie-making. Stereotypes and cliches can be annoying, but they exist for a reason. At least once in a while, you should have a corny one-liner, you should have a big, cinematic moment, you should have some levity and comedy, etc.

But Villeneuve seems to film big action sequences the same way he shoots close-ups, dialogue scenes, establishing shots, etc. His style is too consistent, in a sense. Whereas Nolan uses cinematic conventions to great effect. He has big action scenes and then calm scenes in between. Villeneuve's Dune movies seem to have a somewhat constant pace, and distance us from what's happening. It's a bit too matter-of-fact. In other words, he doesn't embrace the big moments, the spectacle, the way he should.

Another issue is Princess Irulan - is she a goodie or a baddie? It may sound silly, but I need to know. She just seems to be neutral, commentating on things but not taking a stance. What does she stand for? Why should Paul marry her? Just for political benefit? Did she condone or oppose the betrayal of House Atreides? Is that not important?

That's one of my biggest issues with Dune 2 - the vagueness regarding morals. You've worked so hard to build-up this world, make me care, make me hate the Harkonnens and Emperor, to root for the Atreides and Fremen, and then you make it unclear what Paul actually stands for? Is he going to bring about genocide now? Is he the messiah, or just some guy? Doesn't he want revenge for what happened to his father and House?

Why let the Emperor survive? If he's so powerful, why compromise at all? Do the other Houses not see the signs that he's a true leader? Do they support the Emperor's betrayal of House Atreides? None of this is clearly addressed.

So, despite all this, how can I give this a 10? Well, maybe it's more of a 9, but the experience was amazing. It transports you to another world, you're completely invested in it, the music/sound/atmosphere is incredible, the designs/VFX are phenomenal, the acting is great, the story is fascinating. The flaws frustrate me in part because I feel so invested. Just as I could write for hours about Game of Thrones or Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings or other epic stories and worlds which draw you in.

I'm especially excited to see if Villeneuve goes on to make a Dune 3, because Dune 2 certainly leaves things open for a sequel and the book has many sequels. I don't think any of them are as popular as the first book, but it could be interesting. I only hope that Villeneuve can finetune his approach just a little. Keep the style, keep the alien feel and weird languages and imagery. But clarify the central themes a bit. Don't answer every question, but answer some.

And give us some straightforward morals - we've earned it. Let Paul be a hero and get revenge. Don't muddy the waters when you worked so hard to get to this point! Imagine if Luke defeated the Emperor in Return of the Jedi only to then turn evil himself and kill all the ewoks - it would just be stupid.

The Flash (I) (2023)

Way better than I expected

[7/10 · 19 March 2024]

Keep in mind, I had very low expectations for this movie. I was excited but once I saw the rating and some of the reviews and footage, I lost most interest. But still, I thought I'd check it out once it streamed mainly because Michael Keaton is in it.

Let's start with the CGI. A lot of it looks insanely bad. Harry Potter's first quidditch lesson bad. PS2 bad. This is a big budget 2023 movie, it shouldn't look like this. I dunno if they just ran out of money or didn't care. Having said that, some of it also looks pretty cool, especially some of the action scenes near the end.

Ezra Miller is a very talented actor. I feel torn because he seems to have a lot of issues to the point I'm surprised they even still hired him. Is he just troubled or actually dangerous? I also have to say that his insistence on "they" as a pronoun is very patronising and confusing - I can't believe Wikipedia seems to have gone along with this. He's clearly a guy, and he can have whatever sexuality he wants.

But anyway, Miller is actually quite good in the lead role. In fact, he plays two characters, or at least, two versions of the same character. And that part of the VFX worked pretty well. It's easy to forget that it's the same guy and that he can never actually interact with himself.

Miller is good in both the comedic and dramatic parts of the movie. To the point that I was laughing and moved many times, far more than I'd ever expected. The performance feels very sincere and the subject matter is pretty universal. As bizarre and silly as much of the movie is, some of the scenes worked quite well.

Michael Keaton was great as usual, although it felt like he didn't have a huge amount to do. I liked many of the subtle nods to his movies, but not so much the obvious nods. If the movie has to grind to a halt so he can say "THE LINE", it's not worth it. But if we get little details on the screen or choices of wording which many people won't notice, and which don't slow down the momentum of this movie, then it's worth it.

I tend to hate unnecessary gender/race swaps in movies, but Sasha Calle was really good as Supergirl. It was a relatively dark, sad and intense take on the character, but I really liked it. It felt sincere and that's what matters. You feel her anger and some of the action worked pretty well. Still, some of the earlier action scenes with her looked ridiculous, with absurd physics and very dodgy CGI. But her performance and brief arc were really good - I'm surprised she hasn't been in more movies.

I was far less impressed by Kiersey Clemons who I could barely stand. I don't like to be mean, but personally, I didn't find her remotely attractive, believable or good at acting. She felt out of place and really uninteresting to watch. I have to wonder how she got the role. It felt awkward seeing Miller trying to act like he was head-over-heels in love with her, it just didn't make sense.

Part of the reason Supergirl worked was that there's no emphasis on her being a girl, no "girl boss" moments, no unnecessary bringing down of men to prop her up, etc. No reference to her being stronger or wiser than Superman. In contrast, Wonder Woman's brief (and yet still slow-paced) appearance results in 3 men being embarrassed. That scene wasn't really funny.

For example, Wayne mutters about maybe he should end poverty to fight crime rather than fight criminals. Pretty stupid, trite stuff. When welfare was expanded in the US, crime went up. There are no excuses for violent crime so Batman is doing just fine beating up criminals.

An early scene involving saving babies was very absurd and was a bad note for the movie to begin on. The tone just didn't work. Endangering babies is very hard to sell as funny. And it had some of the worst CGI I've ever seen.

The cameos near the end were kind of nice, but didn't really mean anything. They were just arbitrary. I'm left wishing they could have found some meaningful way to connect them to the rest of the story. I don't mind a bit of nostalgia here and there if it's done respectfully and if you've built up to it enough. It's something that could work, but the overall movie and plot just couldn't properly justify it - they did nothing with the concept.

The music is okay - better than many superhero movies these days. But it's nothing compared to the work of Elfman or Williams who scored Batman (1989) and Superman (1978) respectively. The Batman theme is quoted, but the last chord is changed which ruins it. Why do that? Modern composers seem to be far less talented and disciplined than their predecessors. There are no memorable new themes here, although the music does its job well enough for some scenes to be decent.

The Flash is a mess, there's no way to deny that. The DCU (or whatever you call it) has completely fallen apart. This movie barely holds together even without the time-twisting aspects. But good actors and some good ideas here and there elevate the material. Ezra Miller has huge potential as an actor - way above average in both comedy and drama, not to mention interacting with himself. Keaton and Calle are really good as well.

There are parts that are actually moving, some brief moments are rousing and exciting. The ideas have potential. But a lot of the comedy is just bad. The tone is inconsistent. The plot is ultimately dumb. But I have to judge by the best strengths of the movie, I have to try my best to enjoy it, and somehow, I actually found many parts of it quite enjoyable.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

Entertaining with some juicy complications, but still flawed

[7/10 · 31 January 2024]

A notable improvement on the original movie, but still with a lot of weaknesses. It's always better to start slow and end with a bang than the other way around and that's what Catching Fire does.

The early parts are very frustrating. In particular, I want characters to be consistent. Katniss was depicted as stoic and tough in the first movie, while also being kind and compassionate. Certainly she wasn't perfect, but at least there were some positive qualities to build upon. Instead, she is treated like a blubbering mess at the start of this movie, which makes no sense.

Sure, I get it. PTSD is a thing. But if you barely flinch or react in the moment and get through X, Y and Z, and keep going, it doesn't make sense to randomly have nightmares and fall apart later on. I thought part of the point was that Katniss was already a strong person, having to be independent, already facing loss and violence, killing animals with a bow and arrow, etc. It's more of an attempt to generate artificial drama than a natural progression for the character.

An ongoing problem with these movies is the boring characters and how overly emotional they are. In particular, Katniss' sister and mother are SO BORING. I don't know what to say. They make no difference. Now sure, they're family. Family is important. I can relate. But at least my family members have HOBBIES, interests, talents, personalities. They smile or crack jokes sometimes. It seems like Prim does NOTHING interesting. But hey, she's a little sister so we should automatically adore her and find her compelling. No. I'm afraid that's not how it works. She exists as an emotional hook and nothing else.

This movie only picks up when it gets to its own Hunger Games. This is ironic since it reflects a lack of creativity. It's the age-old "repeat the 1st movie but on a bigger scale". But hey, it works in this case. Maybe the strategy is to make the rest of Panem so dull and pointless that we thank the heavens for another round of the Hunger Games. It's ironic also because part of the entertainment comes from the death - that's a more compelling movie than people twiddling their thumbs and vaguely contemplating revolution. Are we sick and twisted for wanting to watch people kill each-other? It's just a movie, but still.

At least there's some excitement and mystery within the Games. This time we have all the survivors from the past. Most of them seem surprisingly unphased by the situation. You'd think they'd be furious and sad to have to go through such a thing a second time. Again, it's frustrating NEVER seeing what the people in the Capitol think. Are they all unthinking automaton who love the Hunger Games? Are they all super rich and love seeing poor people kill each-other? I'm sorry if I don't buy this.

There's no close relative for Panem in the real world. Did Hitler, Stalin, Mao or any other tyrant have a city full of people in bizarre, colourful clothing? No. In a rich country like the US, do they celebrate poor people killing each-other? No. They buy microwave ovens, air conditioning and watch The Hunger Games (the movie) on Netflix. No killing, no districts, no remote parallels to reality.

At least Catching Fire pushes the themes a bit further. It starts to get pretty dark and intense. But the quality of the writing, acting and directing can't match the overall story's potential. It's veering into 1984 territory, or perhaps The Return of the King. You can have epic battles between good and evil, etc.

Several gimmicks in the Games keeps it interesting. And the cliffhanger is quite effective. However, having started Mockingjay: Part I (and judging by the IMDb rating), the follow-up is pretty disappointing. There was more potential here than Collins knew what to do with. She knows how to create twists and turns. How to get us to empathise (to some degree). How to build suspense and anticipation. She doesn't know how economics, revolution or many human emotions work though.

Anyway, Catching Fire seems to be the Empire Strikes Back of the Hunger Games trilogy. The best one, the darkest one (I'm assuming), the one which really expands the world and the themes. But Hunger Games is not Star Wars and so its peak is still not very impressive. I did enjoy this movie overall, but IF ONLY it had more depth behind it and more to do with the potential it creates.

One final thing - much of the messaging is jumbled. The Nazis were infamous mainly for the holocaust and for invading other countries. And among the things we now associate with them are the Swastika and the arm signal they did. And yet, in The Hunger Games trilogy, which side has a symbol and a hand gesture? Which side has everyone following a charismatic leader like zombies, rather than based on independent reasoning? Their 3-finger salute feels like a Nazi salute. What was Collins trying to say? Or did she just not think any of this through?

Even the Nazis tried to hide their atrocities from the German people. But in Panem, the Capitol seems to know what's happening. Do they? And do they approve? The parallels are very clumsy and inconsistent suggesting a very weak understanding of history on the part of Collins.

The Hunger Games (2012)

Good source material, mediocre direction, mildly entertaining

[6/10 · 24 January 2024]

This movie is like Battle Royale for teens, except that that kind of movie is not remotely for children, or even many adults. That's part of the issue with The Hunger Games. It has the tone of a coming-of-age, slightly edgy, young adult action romance, but the most interesting parts of the movie feel more like A Clockwork Orange, Saw or Se7en.

This is not a cute and cuddly story, however much it tries to include that kind of stuff. It wants to have its cake and eat it too and it doesn't work. The most violent, intense parts work the best but nothing else fits with it.

The direction is bland. What else has the director made? Nobody knows. No vision, no style. Way too often, he uses close-ups or medium shots so we can't see the environment properly. Like so many weak directors (Abrams, for example), he thinks he just has to show the characters and their intense emotions and we'll be won over. No, it doesn't work like that.

We have to connect with the world, understand it, understand what the characters want and why. Only then will we feel something. The Hunger Games does some of that, but I can tell most of the inspiration is coming from the book, not the direction or acting, which are much more average.

Jennifer Lawrence is fine in the main role, nothing amazing, but she suits the role. There are just a few too many close-ups where I'm really not sure what she's thinking or why it matters. I don't care that much. I want the world and the events to be interesting. Then I can project myself onto the main character, like with Luke Skywalker, for example.

We connect with Luke over time. Star Wars doesn't expect us to cry when he faces tragedy - and there are several pivotal events/scenes. But it does want us to root for him by the end. We've seen what the bad guys are capable and now the stakes are really high. Too many movies expect too much empathy too early, including The Hunger Games.

Katniss (which constantly reminded me of cat piss and/or catnip, not a great choice for a name) has a younger sister whose only purpose seems to be to gain our empathy. But the sister is overly emotional and kind of annoying. We don't even know anything about her interests. It's so generic. The same with the mother. Make us LIKE the characters, let them do fun or normal things, THEN we'll care. Don't show them constantly crying - that's dull.

The overall plot has some interesting twists and turns - the book is clearly pretty interesting. But as a film, it does very little with the material. A few parts work quite well - when the games start, for example. No sound, but a pretty crazy adrenaline rush, and probably pretty realistic.

Speaking of realism, I have my doubts that females would last long at all in such a challenge. Okay, Katniss is good with a bow and arrow. But, on average, I don't see girls surviving for long, with all due respect. I can only suspend disbelief for so long and the completely failure of the movie to address this insane imbalance is strange, indeed. Imagine having a big sport match between boys and girls and the characters all act like it's a 50/50 toss up. Yeah, sure.

At times, key issues didn't seem to be addressed. In particular, if I was Katniss, I would have been so furious at one point. I kept wanting her to ask or say certain things to someone else. When the main character no longer seems to have basic common sense or self-respect, it gets really frustrating.

Also, she sometimes tells someone else to be quiet. Why? It's such a stupid cliche. Just let them say it! "Go on without me!" "No, I'm not leaving you." "But..." "Shhhh..." And I just died of cringe. If I've seen it 500 times before, add a twist or do it really, really well.

Some of the CGI has already dated although it wasn't horrendous. It's the kind of thing where you can instantly tell something is fake without being able to exactly explain how. But it reduces the immersion nevertheless.

Again, the tone was one of the main issues. We're talking life and death here. You don't have time for your cute little, 90s sitcom moments. At times it felt like Fresh Prince of Bel Air, with characters making jokes or learning lessons, in between teenagers brutally murdering each-other.

Not enough is explained about the world. In short - I don't buy it. None of it makes sense. Big gaps between rich and poor? It can happen, but always for a reason. And no reason is given here. Where is the wealth coming from? We don't know. Like most movies which have a disenfranchised poor group, it completely ignores culture, as if no such thing exists. They must be poor because of malevolent baddies.

The same with the glamorisation of death. It's just not sustainable. People wouldn't accept that. I guess the sequels will probably go into that. The fashion is also strange. I mean, who knows, people wear all kinds of weird things, but this just feels fake. Ironically, all the actors, both playing rich and poor characters, look like they've just put their costumes and make-up on right before the camera started rolling.

Since I've only seen the first movie, I think it's fine for me to speculate about the sequels. I think there'll be a massive revolution (or an attempt at one) which tries to end The Hunger Games and eventually brings all the Districts together in peace and prosperity. The rich, evil people will learn their lesson and the poor will revolt, etc. But deeper questions about human nature, or how economics actually works, will go untouched. I'll find out.

One of the simplest issues with The Hunger Games is just that it's boring, a little too laborious with some of the plot points, a little too artificial with its emotions. Quite a few cliches as well. The villains are 1-dimensional and we learn nothing about the people of the Capitol or what they think and why. In The Truman Show, we get glimpses of the people watching from home - what kind of people they are and how they react.

Also, the movie cheats to make Katniss look better. She only ever kills in self-defence, which is convenient. She never has to face the prospect of killing a child to win and survive, others do things for her. It's a contrived way to elevate Katniss morally and it feels unearned. Realistically, people aren't all good or evil and you'd face some real moral and psychological dilemmas if put into a fight for your life.

THG plays with your emotions too often. Because of the nature of the story, most characters are disposable and this gets abused way too much. It feels arbitrary which characters we (or Katniss) are meant to care about - whatever enhances the drama of the moment.

I don't regret missing The Hunger Games all these years but at least I've got a few movies to distract myself with now.

Demolition Man (1993)

Futuristic, funny action movie, surprisingly accurate and entertaining

[8/10 · 23 January 2024]

So I decided to rewatch this recently, having good memories of seeing it as a kid with my dad back in 1993. It was a bit scary, but I thought it was pretty cool, exciting and funny (I was about 8).

Seeing today in 2024, it holds up surprisingly well. My expectations weren't overly high, and it's certainly dated in many ways - it feels more like an 80s movie (although some of the SFX are a little more advanced), the action is a often silly and clunky, some of it feels cheap and more like a TV show, and the details of the plot are pretty thin. In particular, it's not clear exactly how society became like this or how the various groups and dynamics actually work.

But having said all that, it has a lot going for it. The comedy works really well, poking fun at an overly soft and uptight futuristic society. Bullock is cute and likeable (and pretty good looking), Stallone fits this role perfectly and comes across as tough but reasonable, Snipes is very edgy and energetic as the villain - his athleticism really stands out, as does his urge for chaos. Bratt is also pretty funny as an overly nice and naive detective and Schneider has some funny moments. I noticed Jack Black for a fraction of a second which I thought was pretty cool.

There's enough in the plot to keep it quite interesting - the concept itself is really cool. A society gone soft, a madman gets released and only a mad cop from the previous century has what it takes to bring him in. In today's age of artificially injecting certain values into movies, Demolition Man is a breath of fresh air, with a much more traditional hero, villain, love interest and other side characters. It never feels preachy but it has some interest points to make.

There are several running gags which I really enjoy - the fines for swearing, the way Stallone is constantly bamboozled by new technology, Bullock trying to make clever comments but always getting the wording wrong so it just sounds dumb or inappropriate, etc.

This is a big, dumb action movie except it's got a cool sci-fi twist, it's actually funny and ahead of its time and it's generally way more clever than it claims to be. It's not too far off in predicting the future in terms of technology, but even more so in terms of temperament, like the ineptness we often see in many fields and how naive some people can become when they're too insulated from reality.

This isn't exactly a high quality film, but it's a very entertaining movie and one of the better of its kind. And the ideas it touches on are ripe for deeper exploration.

Shazam! Fury of the Gods (2023)

Enjoyable, but shallow and by-the-numbers

[6/10 · 30 December 2023]

I enjoyed the first Shazam despite its weaknesses. When a film knows its strengths and sticks to them, it tends to be much more enjoyable. This is a weaker movie but it retains at least some of the good qualities from the first movie. It's got big, silly action, some cool designs for monsters, some funny parts, some heartfelt, sad parts, etc. The music is nothing special but not distractingly bad either.

The villains (a trio of women) are quite underwhelming. It all just lacks imagination. And Zegler's acting is noticeably weak. She overacts everything, like a boxer who telegraphs every hit, her reactions feel so predictable. Acting is the kind of thing you only tend to notice when it's either very good or very bad. Some of the actors (including Zachary Levi) are good, but Zegler is bad.

With very low expectations, this movie was alright. I didn't hate it and I got something out of it. But in that sense it met my low expectations, with no risk of exceeding them. It's disappointing that they couldn't take the ideas/material from Shazam! And actually build something more interesting.

The advantage of a sequel is that you can learn from your mistakes, remove the boring stuff, double down on the best stuff and take it in new directions. But too often the sequel only exists to repeat the formula of the original and make money, including this movie.

The special effects are good but the surrounding filmmaking elements do nothing with them. There is no imagination, no excitement. It's clear that the actors have nothing to play off of. It's clear that nobody feels there's anything special about this movie or its events. It's very by-the-numbers. I still generally enjoy the tone, characters and monsters, etc., but it's passionless.

It does feel a bit woke in terms of trying to have 3 female villains and other female heroes. It's just become so trite at this point. Always nerfing the male heroes and artificially replacing them with females who are just automatically strong, wise and basically perfect. It's dull is all. It could work, but not if every movie does it with the same lack of creativity or sincerity. And I don't think audiences like it. There's nothing wrong with the strong male hero rescuing the beautiful damsel in distress.

Full disclosure, I saw the first half of this on a plane. But it kept me entertained and distracted from the turbulence for long enough. And the fact that I remembered where I was up to and bothered to finish it is a point in its favour. It's better than most superhero movies coming out these days, but that's a frightfully low standard, unfortunately. Especially if you like funny, light-hearted, silly, chaotic action, with a bit of heart, it's an okay movie.

Con Air (1997)

Shooting, explosions, one-liners, what more do you want?

[7/10 · 29 October 2023]

This is a dumb movie but a very entertaining one. I was thinking it's like the quintessential Michael Bay movie but I guess it's actually a Jerry Bruckheimer movie which isn't that much different.

It kicks ass and that's all it does. People walk away from explosions in slow motion, everyone talks in one liners, it's full of pop culture references, the plot is very over-the-top, as are many of the performances, lots of stuff blows up, etc.

This brought back some nice memories. I must have watched Con Air a lot as a teenager because I remembered it really well. It's funny how some things just sit somewhere in the back of your mind for years, gathering dust, but pick them up, blow the dust off and they're ready to go. I knew this movie way better than I thought I did.

When a movie has a main draw - action in this case - and it works, nothing else matters that much. This is a high energy, adventurous, big and stupid movie which works quite well. About as good as movies like this can be. Up there with Independence Day.

It was funny to see Dave Chappelle basically playing himself - I had no idea who he was all those years ago. In general the cast is quite good - John Cusack is likeable and funny, the same with John Malkovich as the villain, Ving Rhames, Steve Buscemi, Monica Potter, etc. They're all good. Nic Cage is Nice Cage. He has long hair and keeps saying "Hummingbird". And his physique seems pretty good. The classic "good guy caught in the wrong place at the wrong time".

The action is put together quite well. It's big and entertaining. There are some cool stunts and the effects work pretty well - nothing stands out as bad CGI or anything. And the plot moves pretty fast.

The music is quite effective as well. Nothing brilliant but some nice and memorable themes for the goodies and baddies. Plenty of electric guitar and a kind of heavy rock feel.

Movies like this are entertaining enough to make you forget or not care how stupid they are. That does take skill. Con Air is well crafted enough to keep you engaged for the whole runtime and maybe to even revisit it again later. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it holds up pretty well and it was a nice nostalgia hit which reminded me of how much I used to like this movie. Now if only that guy had left the bunny in the box...

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

Visually striking, darkly funny, aimless

[8/10 · 14 September 2023]

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this one. Kubrick is certainly a visionary and interesting director, but Full Metal Jacket feels a bit ambiguous and aimless. It's often intense and engaging overall, but lacks a cohesive overarching structure. I feel like I'm missing some deeper point to it, but the simpler answer is that what I'm looking for is just not there.

People seem to rave about the first third of the movie with R. Lee Ermey and Vincent D'Onofrio at the army barracks during training. But while I liked the acting and some of the intensity, it also felt a bit boring to me. It doesn't feel like anything meaningful is going on and I'm unsure what the point of it is.

It also gets repetitive. Okay, a drill sergeant constantly yelling at his soldiers/trainees. Great. What, for 40 minutes? Okay. Is this meant to be a realistic simulation of boot camp? Or is it meant to be an exaggeration? Is this meant to show how harsh training can be? Or is it meant to be funny? I mean, I honestly burst out laughing at Ermey multiple times. He's not wrong a lot of the time! "Are you kidding me?!? You can't even do ONE pull-up?!?" That was hilarious.

The movie also seems to be ambiguous about "Gomer Pyle". Is he mentally challenged? It certainly seems that way. But also, he's quite good with guns. What does it matter though? He ends up dying so all his character qualities were for nought. Did he kill Ermey because he was so mean to him? Or would he have killed any instructor from the workload? Was it because he was already a bit insane and unstable? It's hard to know. Even quite a normal person might start to hate Ermey's overbearing attitude.

The other soldiers take their frustration out on "Pyle" by taking turns beating him with soap wrapped in towels. This is highly disturbing but we can understand their frustration. But I'm left thinking the whole situation is stupid. These are adults and this is war. You need to grow up and make smart decisions. Either this Pyle guy is competent enough to train or not. He should've just been kicked out straight away. Or segregated and put in a special program. The others shouldn't beat him but should make a formal complaint. He would be a liability out in the field.

The sergeant himself is a mix between strict, funny and way too aggressive. Some of what he says is just true. Some of it is crude but pretty standard for how guys talk to each-other. But much of it is also just ridiculous - screaming at the top of his lungs over nothing. A waste of energy. I would request to move to a different group, not because I can't handle pressure or hard work, but because the sergeant is edgy and borderline insane.

The rest of the movie is similarly ambiguous. I'm not sure whether to laugh or be disturbed or both. Maybe that's the point and maybe that's brilliant and deep. Or maybe it's shallow and lazy.

Take the guy shooting from the helicopter. He's laughing like crazy, shooting into thin air, it seems. Then we see his point of view - he's shooting random rice farmers, innocent civilians, many of them women. Are we meant to be shocked? Horrified? Gagging like the other guy in the helicopter? Did this ever actually happen in Vietnam? Once or twice, maybe. Or was it common? I couldn't help but laugh. This guy is insane, loves killing and the movie just kinda glosses over it. Why include this? Especially if it was probably extremely rare or entirely fictionalised?

Take the final, elongated sequence where the main characters are dealing with a sniper. It's a predictable and hilarious comedy-of-errors. First one guy, standing in the open, gets shot. But not fatally. The others take cover and start shooting like crazy. Finally they stop firing and debate what to do. The first guy gets hit again and screams, then they all shoot again until their captain tells them to stop again.

The firing achieves nothing. It's absolutely moronic in terms of strategy - it wastes ammo, gives away your position, hits no targets and makes it harder to find the enemy because of all the commotion. Then of course another guy goes to rescue the first one. Can you guess what happens? They get hit, scream in slow motion and they all shoot like crazy again. I felt like I was watching a Key and Peele sketch. It's actually a pretty funny idea, but I can't tell if Kubrick was going for comedy.

After several of them get killed by not taking cover, finally they corner the sniper and, lo-and-behold, it's a teenage girl. Is this realistic? I'm sure some soldiers in a war like this were young or were girls. But this feels like a cheap idea by Kubrick. Yes, it messes with our feelings. This savage, deadly sniper who just murdered several main characters is just a girl! You're ready for them to just tear this sniper to shreds, but now you feel bad that they're shooting a kid.

Then she's breathing there, bleeding to death. Whispering some kind of prayer. What am I meant to feel or think about this? Horror? Confusion? Emptiness?

Whatever. None of this feels particularly insightful. War is bad. Yes. Got it. That's actually very obvious. Kubrick doesn't give any time to the reasons for the Vietnam war. Or to military strategy or bureaucracy or to any specific moral dilemmas. He just focuses on having one intense or weird scene after another. It actually feels quite slow and deliberate, rather than fast-paced. It's engaging, but still left me feeling a bit bored and wanting more. More meaning. More sharpness and clarity.

If Kubrick is saying that humans are capable of evil - sure. But why? How do we end up like that? No answers or even ideas are offered. Modine's character is fine and somewhat neutral - a means for us to vicariously experience the events of the movie. But nothing he experiences feels all that enlightening. I see inefficiency, bad choices, insane people, incompetence and some of the disturbing outcomes of any war. But I see nobody doing anything about it or pointing out the obvious.

Nobody says "gee, our drill sergeant is a bit over-the-top isn't he?" Or "is this really necessary?" Nobody says "let's try to carefully but quickly flank this sniper, staying in cover the whole time. Let's get a visual and rough idea of where the sniper is." "Why is this psychopath murdering innocent people in fields - would his superiors actually defend this? How does it help us win the war?" "Why are we even fighting in Vietnam? Are we the good guys, in which case we should be patriotic, confident and not dwell on the sorrows of war, or is this unnecessary, in which case we should just pull out and end the misery?"

There's room for different opinions on war and Vietnam specifically. But Kubrick seems to offer nothing solid. Maybe it's because I'm a mathematician - I like getting answers. And even in politics and war, there are answers. Some wars are necessary. Some strategies work better than others. Some countries committed worse evils than others. Moral principles do exist.

Full Metal Jacket is a bold and entertaining movie, but one with very little of value to say. War is bad - of course it is. It works somewhat as a very dark comedy. And that's certainly deliberate in part. It's subtle but there. Kubrick likes playing with juxtaposition and expectations. He uses upbeat pop songs for much of the movie.

It's just way too over-the-top to take too seriously. And as a dark comedy, it is pretty funny and makes some interesting if scattered points about war and what it's like to live through it. But it doesn't commit fully to this and seems to want to be a drama or commentary as well - at which it is much less successful.

Species II (1998)

Entertaining but not great, pretty silly

[4/10 · 14 September 2023]

I never saw Species II when it came out, but I remember thinking it looked really cool and interesting. Similar to the first movie but taken to the next level, what sequels usually try to do. This time, there are two of them. If the female was that dangerous, imagine how bad the male will be! Or if they combine/mate!

The mix of horror, cool HR Giger alien design, sex, space (going to Mars) and then the military/detectives/scientists trying to stop a disaster all seems exciting to me. But this movie has a low rating so I never bothered to watch it until now.

It was okay, not a great movie but not that bad either. It was actually pretty entertaining. The concept has potential but the script doesn't know what it's doing. Madsen is once again the main highlight. It's also nice that they brought back his biologist girlfriend from the first one and, of course, Natasha Henstridge. But Natasha is underused. She's literally locked up for most of the movie, making her presence feel a bit unnecessary and wasted.

Some of the other actors are pretty bad. The main military general guy felt lame. The main astronaut guy who gets infected is not the strongest actor either. The black guy gets to be a funny sidekick which works fine.

The story is just way too superficial, and the overall weakness of the script, direction and some of the acting brings it all down. The violence feels stupid and over-the-top. There are no consistent rules. It's not clear why some people simply get infected while others get killed. It's kind of hilarious seeing the women have horrific birth deaths right after having sex. The Species movies are good advertisements for using protection.

The finale is pretty stupid but somewhat entertaining. The design of the male alien is pretty cool (similar to Dr Smith in Lost in Space (1998) but we barely see it. It's all over too quickly. Probably the highlight was using Sil to see what the male alien sees and track him down. It's a cool idea but doesn't last long. The movie just feels cheap and unpolished so good parts are only feebly sprinkled throughout.

Still, this movie was pretty easy to watch. I was generally engaged by it, but it's pretty forgettable. Not as bad as a lot of movies. With a better crew and more serious effort at a good script, it could've been quite good - there were plenty of ways to follow on from Species and up the ante.

Species (1995)

Generally entertaining, could have been more

[6/10 · 14 September 2023]

I saw Species as a teenager and found it interesting. Certain scenes in particular. Natasha Henstridge is very good looking. Anyway, I chose to rewatch it recently, quite casually.

There's something about horror and sex that's mysterious and entrancing. I found the idea of space and aliens really exciting as a kid. And Species has an interesting concept. It doesn't completely deliver on it - it's a movie which feels halfway between big budget Hollywood and low budget indie. The cast lifts the quality, some of the special effects are decent, but overall the story and directing make it feel a bit cheaper.

Roger Ebert didn't like it because the alien keeps jumping out from behind a wall - a cliche. It's so predictably evil with not much else going on. This is where Species misses some of its potential. The idea that Sil (the alien human girl hybrid) is afraid, wants to survive, is half-human, half-alien, confused, etc. That could be developed into some really meaty material. Existentialism, the meaning of life, her instincts, her fears and desires. Is she loyal to humans or some alien species? Is she good or evil? Does she have control?

Also, the parallels with changes we go through could be explored. Puberty, aging and various diseases - these are all real examples of body horror in a way. Sil goes through a major transition with a cocoon. But does she know what's happening? It seems not, but the movie doesn't explore it much.

The movie is entertaining with its mix of scares, sex scenes and the group of people chasing after Sil. But it's a bit repetitive. They find a dead body, giving them a lead. Sil tries to sleep with someone. Something goes wrong. The team arrives but it's too late. Rinse and repeat.

I didn't notice the music much except for the main theme during the opening credits which is pretty good - mysterious and a bit ominous, nice chords. Probably a bit of a rip-off of Alien which the whole movie feels a bit modeled on. Speaking of which, HR Giger's designs are pretty cool, the same old mix of alien, sexual, industrial, organic, etc.

The finale is a bit silly and the CGI starts to fall apart, really showing its age in 2023. The story ends up feeling a bit empty. Mildly exciting but anticlimactic. Michael Madsen is the main highlight from the cast. Alfred Molina and Ben Kingsley are underused. These actors are much more capable than what the script demands of them.

Henstridge is naturally quite a good actress - better than many people give her credit for. With the limited dialogue she has, she expresses a fair bit - confusion, fear, sexual desire, problem solving, curiosity, etc. She seems innocent but also very dangerous.

Species just needed a few rewrites to make it better. Flesh out the deeper themes. Add some variety to the events in the movie. A more epic finale. Some more interesting subplots. Some more comedy or action - something to contrast with the main linear part of a team chasing down a dangerous femme-fatale alien. As it is, it's an alright movie.

Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

Glorified screensaver

[5/10 · 14 August 2023]

Cameron's made some great films - Aliens is one of my personal favourites, T2 is arguably the best action movie of all time, True Lies is good, Titanic is decent if a bit bloated. But Avatar had major flaws. Practically everyone agrees - the visuals were very impressive, the world was detailed and interesting, but the actual plot and characters weren't that likeable. The message (nature good, humans and capitalism bad) is preachy and stupid.

Cameron, being the genius that he is, decided to use the same characters in his sequel, with the same dull qualities and the same reliance on amazing graphics (I admit, they look amazing, a good way to show off fancy 8k OLED screens) without a good story, themes or plot to make use of them. I mean, I don't think it's a spoiler to say he brought back the same bad guy from the first movie. The bad guy we all thought was too 1-dimensional. Well, I guess he's 1.5 dimensional now. A fractal, if you're mathematically oriented. Not really an improvement.

In fact, it's almost worse as now he's mostly evil... but also a bit inconsistent. Sometimes arbitrarily nice or overly trusting. We need a deeper motivation for him, some kind of vision that he thinks is good - he has to see himself as the hero.

Avatar 2's problem is that I just don't care. I want to but can't. Zoe Saldana's character does absolutely nothing but scream, cry, scream, glare, shoot arrows (okay, that's kinda cool), cry, growl and scream. It's lame. I can't remember the main character's name. Or any of the others. I don't get why they do what they do. I don't feel connected to their world or stakes.

Look, we have words like barbaric, tribal, backwards and uncivilised for a reason. All humans started like that - primitive and animalistic. But there's a reason we started using words rather than grunting, wearing clothes rather than leaves, using guns instead of spears, etc. We became civilised. That's not just a fashion choice, it's a critical part of progressing.

It makes no sense for the Avatar people (Na'vi, whatever it is) to still be like cavemen but super advanced. It doesn't work like that. The same with Wakanda. Advanced technology isn't something you just do 'cause you feel like it. It takes decades, centuries of infrastructure, education, clothes for crying out loud, and other basic civilised things.

Anyway, because of that, I find the blue (and teal) people really uninteresting and self-contradicting. They couldn't possibly have weapons that advanced but still be like tribal people who live in nature. They argue and assume things, their strategy is often terrible. I don't like them. A few are okay, ironically the ones who are more "human", who think and have motivations.

The baddies are still completely superficial. They just blow up, burn and destroy stuff. That makes no sense. We cut down trees to use the wood to make buildings, houses, furniture, books, etc. Is that so bad? No, it's justified. Some animals get displaced, but that's a necessity. What matters more - 50 orangutans or 1,000 humans? But in Avatar 2, what is their motivation for the destruction?

Why is there no mutually beneficial exchange going on? This part of history gets ignored. The more advanced civilisation can offer better medicine, transport, communication, clothes (pretty important), etc. The local primitive people will definitely want those things! In exchange, they can offer insights into the land, the animals and plants, etc. They can cede land to the more advanced culture in exchange for a share of the more advanced technology!

One thing the baddies do is kill giant whale lobsters for their glowing yellow brain fluid. Oooh, so evil. What does the yellow goo do? Apparently it lengthens human life. Oh my, these baddies are so deeply ev- wait... extend human life? So, like, by how much?

They say the goo from a lobster-whale brain is worth $80 million (in 2050 (or whatever year) US dollars I assume). But how powerful is it? Can it lengthen ten people's lives by 5 years each? A hundred people's lives by 10 years each? One person's life by 6 months? Why is this never explained?

I'm sorry, but if the brain goo of a lobster on steroids can extend a lot of people's lives by a large amount, then it may well be financially worth it and morally justified to hunt the huge lobsters.

Also, they don't use the rest of the carcass. One of the goodies is upset by this. What, would you prefer they cut up the carcass and sold it for other uses? Speaking of which, why don't the baddies use the rest of the carcass? Really? None of the rest of it has any value? Basic economics and the concept of incentives have gone right out the window.

The acting is decent, the innovation in motion capture and CGI is good, the music is forgettable but I guess it's at least there, the story and heroes and villains have no depth or logic to their positions, the characters are boring and unlikeable. It's a little too long and convoluted, but it generally held my mild interest.

There were some more touching moments near the end, but even they get ruined by histrionic wailing by you-know-who. The plot is so dumb that even a girl observes that "I'm being tied up again?!", to paraphrase. If the characters are noticing bad writing, what does that tell you?

We get a major battle perhaps inspired by They Live!, but it all feels pointless because of what happens next. I really wanted a sequel (another intense personal fight) as that would have been absolutely hilarious. It's a bad sign when I want the movie to turn into a terrible parody of itself just so it becomes more enjoyable.

Avatar 2 wasn't all bad, but it's not really a success either. It's terrible in terms of narrative, character motivations, logic, likeable characters, deeper themes. All it has going for it are the effects, the overall look and some action sequences and dramatic scenes here and there. I can't call it a disappointment since my expectations were already at sea level.