keyserlives95 Reviews

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024)

The era of style over substance refuses to let go

[5/10 · 7 June 2024]

Have you ever tried to get 100% completion on a video game? Remember those moments where you have to complete the generic side-quests you don't really care about but need to complete in order to get 100% completion? Yeah, that's this movie - only worse, because you're not even in control.

Being a firm believer that films attached to a series/saga should also stand on their own merit, shining in and of themselves, I gave this one a shot, having never seen Mad Max: Fury Road.

Having now watched Furiosa, I can report I am in no way in any rush to watch Fury Road.

I can also confirm this is one of the most assuredly spoiler free reviews because I remain clueless as to who the main character is, who ANY chracter is, what the purpose of these characters are, what the world in which this event is set represents, why any of this even matters and why I should care about any of it.

After watching this, why should I ever watch another Mad Max film ever again? Please, someone tell me.

The film can essentially be summed up as: "Loud muscle vehicles letting off steam as they go back and forth through a vast barren wasteland with a few odd characters caught up in the middle. Oh, and a bit of a side-plot, too."

I was in no way emotionally attached to this world or the characters therein. I simply didn't care about the outcome of any of it despite really trying to engage in the "story." And that's a shame because I went in to the film completely open-minded, with no reservations and ready to be drawn-in. The grip never came.

In the interests of fairness I will praise the film purely from a filmmaking perspective, as is often the case with these 'tardis in reverse' movies of late (think Avatar 2): brilliant camera work, several stunning shots; nice cinematography; pretty-looking CGI, a couple of impressive action sequences and, uhm *scratches head*... ah yeah, that was it.

Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

Not what you think

[7/10 · 2 May 2024]

I was taken off guard by how enjoyable this is. Well executed and aided by a great script, here we have a stylish action with a bit of the good old Groundhog Day treatment.

I usually find futuristic 'stuff-getting-blown-up-all-the-way-through' action movies tedious and a chore to sit through. Now don't get me wrong, there definitely IS stuff getting blown up all the way through here. But this is NOT just another lazy action popcorn flick. More than that, unlike so many other CGI-ridden modern action films (which encourage you to switch off your brain), this one actually makes you THINK. And to top it all off, there is some really clever humour, too.

To anyone like me who's not particularly into fast-paced action and wondering whether they should give this one a watch due to the high-scoring reviews...just watch it. You won't be disappointed.

Napoleon (2023)

A longer cut won't save this.

[4/10 · 25 November 2023]

If I could pick one noun to describe how I felt watching Ridley Scott's new film, that noun would be: indifference. The picture failed to imprint me with even a smidgen of emotional charm, as an historical war epic (marketed as such) of this nature ought to do. I kept waiting for the moment of engagement to come - the moment when the viewer is gripped and drawn into the experience - but it never did. I felt my eyes closing fairly early but fought to keep them open, hoping things would improve.

Half the problem lies with the fact that the plot has no substance. The film just isn't guided well and drifts between events, suddenly and with nowhere near enough direction as to what type of film it is trying to be - is it a war epic with side drama or is it a tale of matrimony with a few battles - the scenes of which are lifeless and forgettable. Owing to not nearly enough exposition, this is a frustrating watch for someone who knows the history of the Napoleonic era, let alone the average viewer who may not have intricate knowledge of the period and ensuing battles.

Granted, set & costume design are good; effects and photography are nice. But that's not really saying much coming off the back of such a high-budget production. Big money alone can't replicate the aura and spirit of the great battles of renown. Instead, battle sequences in Napoleon are showcased more as formalities, merely going through the motions and serving as an interlude between the matrimony of Napoleon and Joséphine, whereas the latter should have served as the interlude (if at all). Ironically, this could almost be an incidental let-off. After all, at the height of his conquest, battles *were* a formality for the French military leader. In this respect, the battle scenes flow adequately from A to B in a routine-like structure. But this is the problem. More so than any other film of this genre, I wanted Napoleon to showcase the art and odyssey of the Napoleonic wars and to do so in a manner worthy of what was one of the greatest campaigns in modern military history. It's a shame, then, that the portrayal of these mighty, colonial conflicts, so integral to the history of modern Europe, are structured too haphazardly and devoid of soul.

With this in mind, puzzling is the decision to spend so much running time on a wasteful subplot between Napoleon and his wife. In fact, the matrimonial battles carried more weight than events on the battlefield.

The next half of the problem with Napoleon, and the reason I personally doubt a longer cut will be a marked improvement, is that at no point was this portrayal of a pivotal figure of modern European history convincing. Joaquin Phoenix's performance was POOR. And I say this regrettably, being someone who gave a perfect 10 performance to Phoenix in Joker (2019). Despite this, I'm sorry to report this was a miscast, pure and simple. Every line delivered - either in the form of mumbling utterances or half-hearted battle-cries - and every attempt to exhibit leadership, on or off the battlefield, was an almost ceaseless break in the little suspension of disbelief I had to try so hard to muster and retain from the outset. Unlike the real figure, at no point was I convinced this man was able to harness the allegiance of hundreds of thousands of men and lead them into battle. Whilst Phoenix achieves a modest resemblance in portrayal of style and stature, he more importantly doesn't have the charisma or virility to pull off this role in faithful enough a fashion.

Napoleon is a very average, incompetently plotted, disappointingly directed film, and a missed opportunity to bring the Napoleonic tale to modern audiences in cinematic format.

A film about the military campaign of Napoleon warrants a longer cut. But how will a longer cut redeem what is ultimately a weak lead performance, with a screenplay devoid of a plot?

5/10.

Ad Astra (2019)

Ad Astra: the film which wants you to see the wood for the trees; the film which demands you consider; the film which asks: what if?

[7/10 · 13 January 2023]

"What did he find out there?" Answer: the BITTER truth.

Ad Astra is a philosophical, thought-provoking and deeply human film which points to the importance of intricate human bonds and explores subjects of love, hopelessness, regret, purpose, inquisitiveness and mental fortitude.

Consider there is no hope coming. Consider there are no mythical enigmas out there waiting for us to crack. Consider the cynical reality that space is a vast, bleak and empty place, devoid of intelligent life. Consider the rare planet theory COULD JUST be real. Consider the possibility that mankind IS alone. Consider that old nostalgic phrase: 'home is where the heart is'. Consider the fact our lives and those we hold dear exist predominantly in the here and now. Consider the things we should place value and emphasis on...aren't things. Consider that happiness is found in mundane places often staring us in the face, not in some 'out there' oasis in the stars, as movies like Gattaca would have you believe.

This is a concept of which a lot of people today would find too cynical and sobering a reality to conceive or comprehend. Mankind cannot bring itself to accept such a notion because, too seduced by the 'I want to believe' mantra, mankind finds itself unable to restrain its own innovative impulse.

Yet what if - just, WHAT IF - this cynical reality WAS, in fact, the truth - the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

The Champ (1979)

Probably the most underrated tearjerker of all time.

[7/10 · 3 January 2023]

Whilst Rocky is most revered in boxing cinema, at its core that movie is loved more as a drama than it is an action-sports flick. The passive, nuanced moments of Rocky reveal a deeper story and one which undoubtedly contends a boxer's life is infinitely more about what is happening to him outside of the ring than within those short 12 rounds, inside it.

Nowhere is this truer than in 1979's The Champ, a close second to Rocky in the boxing-drama category made possible by an exhibit of impeccable casting.

Jon Voight and Ricky Schroder are perfect in their respective roles of Billy Flynn and his young son, TJ. The contrast between Billy - the brash and reckless, rough-around-the-edge yet altruistic, kind-at-heart father and TJ - his, innocent, dedicated and beautifully animated son, brings more life to the story and renders both on and off-screen moments between the two characters all the more heart-rendering. In spite of the fact that the ending of the film is notably its most memorable moment, this is not where the meat of the story lies. There is, for example, some incredible acting and direction in the preceding acts which deliver some truly convincing encounters between the lead characters and which, crucially, give all the more credence to the finale. In particular, a heartedly conversation which takes place in the second act between Billy and Annie (Faye Dunaway) is especially powerful. Put simply, all leading roles give electric performances.

It can't be overstated that where the film truly shines, though, is in then child actor Ricky Schroder, who not only gives one of the most compelling child acting performances of all time, but is without question the heart and soul of the picture. This is demonstrably true in a number of highly-engaging set pieces which showcase the enchanting father-son kinship between Billy and TJ. But nowhere is this more the case than in the climatic scene, wherein Schroder is so pivotal to the experience that the weight of the event is almost forgettable in the absence of his riveting performance. This is truly one of the all time great, award-worthy child-acting achievements.

The Champ is a nice-looking picture. Cinematography feels natural and pleasant. There is also some notable camera work including a fair few impressive wide and steady long-distance shots which bring the film a fair visual presence and personality of its own. The film is skilfully edited, with never a lifeless or tedious moment. We are instead captivated by a number of exceptionally moving, adequately flowing and dramatic sequences.

Music is nothing iconic but adequate and serves more as a quietly touching thematic background for the important scenes. Nonetheless, nothing too over the top is ever needed, owing to such strong acting displays.

Judging by the IMDb rating alone, this piece of cinema feels like a lost gem - why The Champ is not remembered as one of, if not the, greatest tearjerkers and best overlooked dramas of cinema history is a terrible shame and discredits a magnificent work.

Case in point - as of this review there is still no Blu-ray release - what a great misfortune!

The Dark Knight (2008)

The best Batman movie is also the most overrated movie of all time.

[7/10 · 8 March 2022]

Is The Dark Knight an exceptional Batman movie? Sure.

Is The Dark Knight the third greatest movie of all time, as ranked by IMDb's top 250 - as in better than Schindler's List, better than Return of the King, better than The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, better than The Matrix, The Empire Strikes Back (you know, the *actual* masterpieces of cinema history)? Hahahahahaha. Please. Don't patronize me.

Sorry, not sorry. I am not prepared, like legions of others on the bandwagon, to give a good but not great movie extra brownie points simply because a member of the supporting cast sadly passed away, hyping the film's notoriety.

The Dark Knight is no better or worse a movie than its prequel or its sequel. Overall it's a solid and enjoyable trilogy, but this movie is barely in the top 100 movies, let alone top 3 of all time.

The Batman (2022)

A remarkable Batman film.

[8/10 · 8 March 2022]

The Batman is an outstanding and nuanced movie that gets all the big things right and is hard to fault in good faith.

Cinematography 8/10

First off, I never thought I'd find myself saying a Batman movie could be TOO dark, but seriously, this was darker than 1998's Dark City! At times I was straining my eyes in the theatre, such was the dimly-lit direction of photography. Fair enough, this is gritty, noir-themed, crime-ridden, neon-saturated Gotham City - not the sweet beaming pleasantries of The Shire - but I do actually want to SEE Gotham City in the literal sense that my eyes aren't equipped with night-vision.

That's not to say there isn't a need for a dark and dingy aesthetic in this gritty, claustrophobic and doom-fraught gothic metropolis. But the desolate aura of the cinematic image is unceasing from the outset and I am left with the view that a a little more vibrance here and there in the odd scene - particularly during shots of the night city - would have fleshed out the cityscape and provided somewhat of a contrast to those those muggy, murky interior shots (which I'm not saying didn't work well).

Cinematically speaking, what is *not* shown more of in the picture was also a slight gripe for me. For example, a grander exhibit of the Gotham itself, which frankly seemed like a bit of an oversight when compared with other core facets of the movie (think exposition time). As I alluded to, very large parts of the movie are filmed in indoor settings, with heavy use of medium to close range shots (which is not to detract from their effectiveness). The movie wasn't entirely without the odd wide-angle shot and brief showcase of the city, though, but the image was so dark - sometimes lost - that I don't recall Gotham City ever being conveyed in a single, memorable shot. Then again, I concede, perhaps this is owed to the director's vision that this Gotham, is far more often *felt* - breathing down your neck - than it is necessary, explicitly *shown*.

As an aside, all other special effects and CGI were entirely seamless.

Score - 10/10

The score was certainly my favourite feature of the movie and I can't praise it enough. More so the especially subtle, atmospheric background music that haunts many a scene in fitting bat-hanging fashion, amidst those shadowy, investigatory and often cramped, choked settings, exactly as a Batman movie should feel. This is a musical score which adds so much to the overall theme of the movie that it assuredly presents itself as the musical manifestation of the Batman himself.

Sound 6.5/10

But, boy, oh boy was the sound mixing off. Let me start by saying I am a young adult who is not hard of hearing. But around 20% of the dialogue was missed because of how low and muttered the spoken voice is in this movie, to the extent that I was straining my ears in at least a couple of scenes.

The sound producers in Hollywood really do need to get their act together, generally, so I appreciate this is part of a broader problem that has been plaguing the industry for some decades now, mind you - perhaps ever since the digital revolution.

Given there is a heavy reliance on mood-driven dialogue for at least 60% of the feature runtime, the movie really ought to have forced subtitles if you want to catch every detail of the story. Seriously.

Casting 9/10

I was instantly won over by Robert Pattinson who masterfully portrays a young Batman/Bruce Wayne. He looked, felt, moved and sounded like the dark knight, with the exception of the 'bulk' sub-category (or perhaps it's the suit assortment that gives Batman a more buffed, broader and bulked-up appearance?).

In hindsight, casting was solid, though there wasn't necessarily a single, stand-out performance beyond the lead himself, who I have no hesitation in saying might just be the best actor to play the part, owing to a very impressive charisma and command of the role. Pattinson treated the role with admiration, care and respect, and in doing so gained my respect; nothing too fancy or OTT from him, just raw authenticity. In terms of the Bat's alter-ego, again, nothing overly-dramatic - cool, calm and collected, and ultimately a likeable, young Bruce Wayne. I thought all supporting actors exhibited jointly credible and adequate performances.

Action 9.5/10

Just right. Wonderfully choreographed. Pretty much no filler. Nothing that felt needlessly over the top. The combat in the first third of the movie was expertly executed. The nightclub scene, for example, was genuinely one of the greatest combat scenes I've witnessed on screen. Batman's intro into the movie gave me chills, preceded by THAT ice-cold opening narrative.

Personally, I've seen more memorable/epic car chases than the main Batmobile (which would've been nice to have seen a bit more of) scene, though admittedly I'm not a massive fan of fast-paced, highly edited, quick-cut sequences. The slow-burn moments are where the magic of the movie lies, for me, which is why I was all the more impressed by the action in this film in that it was equally as satisfying to watch as the calmer moments.

Plot - 8/10

Enthralling, mysterious, haunting, intriguing. Never a dull moment; even the slow-burn scenes draw-in their audience and leave them wanting more. Pacing feels just right, thanks in most part to the main antagonist who keeps the movie flowing under an ever-present cryptic malevolence. Acts 1 and 2 for me are where the soul of the film is. Nonetheless, the final act is very satisfying, the only half-flat moment (if I had to pick one) being the end scene itself, which seemed slightly on the lukewarm for my liking. Even so, the ending, to its credit, certainly left me anticipating more.

The political elements of the plot fit in perfectly and build tension from the outset. There are a couple of sub-plots revolving around corruption which feed into the main story and serve to only increase the mystery and suspense, aided continually by that hair-raising score.

Conclusion - 8.5/10 (rounded to a 9)

A gripping and impactful piece of filmmaking, not since 1995's Se7en has a movie claimed the best award for atmosphere as does 2022's The Batman, a near-perfect first instalment in what looks set to become an untouchable series.

P.s. I don't think this Batman film can be sincerely compared to Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. The overall structure and aim of Matt Reeve's The Batman is so different from Nolan's vision that I find it peculiarly difficult to compare the two. Both have their strengths and setbacks, though the latter ultimately loses by way of being one of the most overrated movies of all time.

The Exorcist III: Legion (1990)

Either do it properly, or not at all. A shame.

[4/10 · 4 January 2022]

I firmly believe if one is to undertake any endeavour in life, one ought either to undertake it wholeheartedly. Otherwise why even bother. Film restoration is no exception to the rule and it is therefore a shame that the lost footage of this film was never able to be recovered. Thankfully, we still have the theatrical cut in its excellent form, so all is still well.

In 'Legion', producers have opted to restore and recut what was left of source VHS tapes to revive 'lost scenes' which William Blatty originally desired to have in the final cut, in hopes of more accurately presenting on screen the events depicted in his novel of the same name. But there's just one big, glaring problem - the 'new' material, comprising raw and fossilized VHS footage, sticks out like a sore thumb and resembles more a 1970s budget British TV sitcom than it does anything to do with The Exorcist III. Naturally this is at odds with (and frankly sacrilege toward) the film's otherwise gorgeous aesthetic (much like Friedkin's The Exorcist, cinematogrophy in Exorcist III is thoroughly absorbing and influencing to the overall viewing experience).

The inclusion of this under-cooked and out of place VHS footage breaks the thick and claustrophobic atmosphere The Exorcist III is known for. The aesthetic and overall feel of the film is tarnished and subsequently the mood is killed - unacceptable in a psychological horror.

I'm sure there are many who will overlook this and still enjoy overall, but I fail to see why anyone in love with this particular vision of the story needn't skip this cut altogether and go straight to the source - the novel itself. Whilst it may be argued they add depth to the plot in the spirit of the novel, these 'recovered' scenes can't merely be overlooked due to their poor-quality on-screen production value which are cheap and disruptive.

It's a shame adequate time and investment wasn't afforded to a proper digital restoration of the VHS tapes. Perhaps Blatty should have waited longer to leave this project in the capable hands of a trustee, for a time in the future when technology allows for a better result. Had the extra material been added in more competently, it would have complemented the theatrical version and we would've been treated to a remarkable work; perhaps even a superior cut!

So how might this be problem be overcome? The solution is simple - the theatrical cut of The Exorcist III is one of the most brilliant and regrettably overlooked psychological horror flicks ever made. If you want to fully appreciate the vision of this story Blatty originally had in mind, don't watch Legion - I recommend you read the book instead. Otherwise, stick with the theatrical cut, a highly underrated gem of the genre, second only to Friedkin's original.

Director's Cut - 5/10 Theatrical Cut - 7/10.