Change Your Image
jtwright-02770
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Metallica: 72 Seasons - Global Premiere (2023)
A massive waste of potential.
When it took Metallica 8 years to release the album Hardwired after their former release Death Magnetic, frontman James Hetfield admitted that gap was "too long" and vowed not to make fans wait like that again. Well, he technically lived up to his promise, considering that it only took 7 years to release their newest album, 72 Seasons. The band's 11th studio LP, 72 Seasons had been reasonably arising lots of hype in the music community, so why not accompany the album's release with an event only seen in theaters? 72 Seasons - The Global Premiere offered fans to "watch" the album in its entirety in theaters a week before the music was released, accompanied by interviews and a behind-the-scenes look at the album's production. This all seems promising, considering how every single song on the Hardwired album had its own music video, and considering Metallica's rich history and influence to modern music. Maybe they shouldn't have charged $25 bucks for an unfinished product.
To speak briefly about the music itself, coming from a lifelong fan of Metallica's music, the album as a whole is fine. There are more good songs than bad, and for the first time in decades there really aren't any bad song at all to complain about, but the album as a whole mostly sounds the same and could be elevated by a ballad or two to break up the pace. Some passion shines through the music and it finally sounds as if Metallica are having fun in the studio for the first time in decades, but the album is too plaintive in being "just good enough."
However, the music is just a small part of this Global Premiere, as we aren't paying to just stare at a black screen for 78 minutes. In reality, I wish we were. While some songs feature fully produced music videos that are visually appealing and well-shot, about half do not. I'm not sure if they outsourced to college kids for some of these "music videos", but the richest metal band on earth clearly did not invest much money into this project. Staring at strobing 8-bit blocks flashing at light speed without interruption over a mediocre 7 minute song makes for one of the most unbearable theater experiences I can recall. The 11-minute epic "Inamorota" has what looks like a really foggy shower that, yes, plays for all 11 minutes. One song has a dancing mountain that bops up and down for 7 minutes. There are even enjoyable songs that were tarnished by their visual counterparts, solely because they were so straining and so boring that I simply couldn't wait for the song to end.
There is enough to keep my attention when the band actually is on screen for videos of "Sleepwalk My Life Away", "You Must Burn!", and the title track, but most of the other one's could've been generated by high school art class students or by a free-to-use AI software. The interviews themselves are also hollow, as James Hetfield couldn't be paid to seem invested for the event; his description for the lyrics of "Crowned of Barbed Wire" are close to "yep, they're lyrics, do what you want with them, I guess." as if even he doesn't care. Though bassist Rob Trujilo's poor descriptions of each song do offer some comedic relief; The 11-minute gloomy and doomy "Inamorata", a song about suicide, being described as "perfect for the beach" and "driving on a sunny day with the convertible roof down" are gutbusting in hindsight, though I'm still not sure if he was joking.
Maybe in 2035, Metallica can release their next album and try this whole "Global Premiere" thing with a bit more effort. Maybe they can actually finish videos for each song and not release something that was clearly incomplete. Maybe the album will be better. Maybe they won't have burned off their fans by scamming them with crap like this. Maybe it wont cost $30 per ticket. Maybe they'll try a teensy bit harder. The Global Premiere is an excellent idea but maybe other bands with more drive and passion should attempt the concept.
The Thing (2011)
CGI has almost nothing to do with the fact that The Thing (2011) is just mediocre at best.
I remember losing sleep waiting for the release of this film before it had come out, but I found it very odd that it was July 2011 and a trailer or poster for a film set for October still hadn't dropped yet. What's the deal? Isn't that stuff supposed to come out a year before release? I something wrong? As it turned out, 10 years later, yes.
I saw this film in theaters as an 8th grader and while my hype drove me to highly appreciate the movie on first impression, I still wasn't motivated to give it more than something more enthusiastic than "that was pretty good, 7/10." Even as a sugar-filled middle schooler, I knew this film couldn't touch the 1982 film for very obvious reasons.
Honestly, The Thing 2011 is not entirely unredeemable, especially when compared to most horror remakes/reboots of the century so far. Perhaps it could've developed a following based on the genuinely cool ideas that are there...had it been an original movie. Unfortunately, this is not an original film. Anything good the 2011 Thing does, the 1982 Thing does infinitely better. Good elements like the characters and the musical score may work on their own but they don't exceed the greatness of Carpenter's film.
The cinematography is shakey and generic as opposed to Carpenter's slick steadycam, producing images that are nowhere near as remarkable as the wide establishing shots of Outpost 31 blanketed in fog, or red flickers dancing in blue snowscapes. You can't help but wonder why The Thing, as a living being, acts as an obnoxious brute whose only plan is to blindly rampage and bore into people, but becomes a silent, calculated strategizer in the 82 film, even though they take days apart from eachother. There's no immaculate attention to detail here. No in-depth analysis. No rewatchability. You know when almost every single character has been assimilated because the filmmakers spell it out for you. And, of course, the CGI ranges from meh to outright Asylum Studios levels of abysmal. I think some of the CGI isn't worth hate, but some moments are jawdroppingly horrible and some of the worst I've seen in a theatrical studio release (ahem, the helicopter scene).
What I do really enjoy is the use of the language barrier to further separate characters and the power struggle between Winstead and Egerton. The language barrier alienates the Americans from the Norwegians and even basic small talk between two Norwegians forces the Americans, and the audience, the question if they're up to something fishy. I also like how Winstead is established as this film's MacReady until Egerton barges in with a flamethrower and takes control. This is a new dynamic that adds more to the paranoia and tension, and I'm glad that if there's one thing the 2011 understood it had to do, it was the paranoia.
Comparing this one of the 82 film wouldn't matter that much if these filmmakers weren't begging you to make the comparison to begin with. This film ends with the scene that opens the 82 film, and there's no doubt this was made with the intention of some Thing back-to-back movie marathons. It'll only lead to this film becoming less and less appreciated because, well, the 1982 film just does everything better.
Hypnotic (2023)
I think I'm done waiting for Robert Rodriguez's comeback.
Robert Rodriguez has come a long way from making Spanish-language $7,000 action flicks with his friends and family, yet Hypnotic asks if he's starting to go backwards. Part of Double R's appeal was his special ability to make his indie movies seem like they were funded on studio budgets three or four times higher.
Yet, Hypnotic does very little with its whopping $70 million budget, no doubt a career high for Rodriguez. Though there are moments were Rodriguez's skill shines through in the editing and pacing, Hypnotic feels cheap, bland, and made-for-Netflix. Maybe most of that money went straight into Ben Affleck's pockets, though considering how suppressed and lifeless Affleck acts, I doubt that. Ben's lackluster performance is downright awful, smirking and sighing his way through every scene with a bored scowl. Maybe he just never read the script and it was all starting to hit him on set.
Rodriguez's screenplay for Hypnotic is not downright unredeemable, but its flippant and frequent corny dialog doesn't aid its case. Quips ripped straight from an elementary school playground like "There's no time, now c'mon!" And "you just don't get it, do you?" And "you don't know what you're going up against!" litter this script, yet it is a minuscule problem in the long run. I will not doubt Rodriguez's ambition because Hypnotic is certainly ambitious and a bit clever at times, but his screenplay is too ambitious and not clever enough for its own good. Halfway through the movie, the audience is introduced to a plot twist that completely flips the story on its head, rendering the entire story told before this point null and void. Every character now has a new motive, every rule no longer matters, and the plot is now completely different. This happens again, and again, and again, and again, and instead of making the film seem innovative or more existential, it turns Hypnotic into a boring and pretentious mess. Rather being focused on an investing script, I was beginning to predict when the next "twist" would come along and I would nail it every single time, even if the twist itself made practically zero sense. Rodriguez doesn't give the audience enough to process these new rules in the story and, when the credits roll, Hypnotic is nothing more than a pile of Nolan-wannabe gibberish. It's the cinematic equivalent of playing a lightsaber duel with your 7-year-old nephew who keeps changing all the rules on you just so he can keep winning. You chop his arm off and he goes "I have arm-regenerating powers!" You try to force-choke him and he yells "Aha! I am immune to force-choking!" How is it fun anymore when the writer keeps changing the rules every couple of minutes just to stay ahead of you? The answer...it isn't.
I'd say better luck next time to Robert, who is a good filmmaker, but considering his track record for the last decade, I'll say better luck one of these days.
Shifter (2020)
Interesting no-budget sci-fi
Shifter currently sits at a 3.6/10 on IMDb, which is unfair to all the good qualities of the film. With a rating like that, I was ready and expecting to see something really awful, poorly shot, and cheesy. Shifter is none of those things, and it's actually quite good. Overall,
Shifter is definitely not a bad film. It's well shot and has a creepy pace with a downer ending. The performances are quite good too, which is especially impressive considering these are mostly local unknown actors. It certainly feels bigger than it really is. However, it's just a bit too slow; i appreciated the slow pace and the quiet ambience of the film, but after a while it just gets boring. Shifter feels more like a short film that was unsuccessfully stretched to feature length than it does a film that feels natural at 90 minutes...not even 90 minutes at that.
I enjoyed enough of the film and it certainly utilized its microbudget extremely well. I'd like to see what this creative team could do with a larger budget, but the budget was clearly not an issue here. Most of my problems had to do with the writing, which costs no money to perfect.