50 reviews
This is exactly how I want my world cinema. All too often it is deeply ponderous character studies. That is the creator's right. However, in the case of Adilkhan Yerzhanov, he was clearly brought up on the same westerns action movies that I was. In the first five minutes we have an overt reference to The Searchers and this bloody revenge thriller with a Kazakhstan twist is a great addition to the action genre.
The film has a little to say about the political situation and freedom of speech issues in Kazakhstan. But first and foremost it's a bleak, gory, action thriller. The cinematography is superb using the Eurasian Steppe as a desolate background. This is a postmodern western imagine Drive meets A Fist Full of Dollars filmed in Central Asia. Berik Aytzhanov, the titular character, appears to have been hewn out of granite and is as cool as John Wick or Dirty Harry under fire. Anna Starchenko does a great job of playing a very disturbed woman and the two of them create an unlikely bond across an almost ethereal landscape the short composition and lighting always being on point.
The film has a little to say about the political situation and freedom of speech issues in Kazakhstan. But first and foremost it's a bleak, gory, action thriller. The cinematography is superb using the Eurasian Steppe as a desolate background. This is a postmodern western imagine Drive meets A Fist Full of Dollars filmed in Central Asia. Berik Aytzhanov, the titular character, appears to have been hewn out of granite and is as cool as John Wick or Dirty Harry under fire. Anna Starchenko does a great job of playing a very disturbed woman and the two of them create an unlikely bond across an almost ethereal landscape the short composition and lighting always being on point.
I would give the original series 8 to 8.5. If you don't know, the way Korean TV works is that you do one limited series and then you move onto the next project. It could be eight episodes, it could be 12 but it doesn't really run much longer than that. Therefore, when the Korean makers of the original series submitted it Netflix knew they had something interesting but they didn't know they had a cultural phenomenon. Once it blew up, the demand was for more which is not what the makers had in mind.
Series 2 and three are actually one long series. The first series was around one single tournament of the titular games. This time you get one tournament split over two seasons. Leading to a lot of filler.
The original series is high concept but to keep things going ridiculous plots vie for position with ludicrous plot twists and illogical actions. All TV and movies are artificial and designed to provoke an emotional response. But bad TV shows are where you can hear the writing and you can tell that the only reason why a character is acting against their own interests is because the writer needs to get them to a certain position. This happens way too often particularly in season three.
Season two is the bridge season and I gave it a pass because I wanted to see where it was going. However, once you're into season three you realise the writers didn't quite know how to stick the landing. There's lots going on, but sometimes it seems like it's drama for drama's sake. So as you sit there frustratedly watching the final few scenes, you realise this should've been one and done and it would've been remembered as one of the great Korean exports.
Season 1- 8.5 Season 2- 7 Season 3- 5.
Series 2 and three are actually one long series. The first series was around one single tournament of the titular games. This time you get one tournament split over two seasons. Leading to a lot of filler.
The original series is high concept but to keep things going ridiculous plots vie for position with ludicrous plot twists and illogical actions. All TV and movies are artificial and designed to provoke an emotional response. But bad TV shows are where you can hear the writing and you can tell that the only reason why a character is acting against their own interests is because the writer needs to get them to a certain position. This happens way too often particularly in season three.
Season two is the bridge season and I gave it a pass because I wanted to see where it was going. However, once you're into season three you realise the writers didn't quite know how to stick the landing. There's lots going on, but sometimes it seems like it's drama for drama's sake. So as you sit there frustratedly watching the final few scenes, you realise this should've been one and done and it would've been remembered as one of the great Korean exports.
Season 1- 8.5 Season 2- 7 Season 3- 5.
In the first 15 minutes, the protagonists mother dies and his father becomes a Catholic priest and then falls from grace over a woman. So there's a lot going on in this film...all the time.
There's an entire and extended sequence that could only be described as a training montage, but while it has elements of martial arts, it's ultimately to take up skirt photos with the images accompanied by the classical piece Belero. This then is an acquired taste. Japanese comedy of the cult kind. This is a lot of zany for nearly 4 hours. For example, this is the first movie where I've actually seen a close-up of a man's erection being cut off with a pair of scissors and instantly showering a room with crimson blood. Indeed there are more hard-ons in this film than I was expecting.
The acting is as heightened as the script. It's not a lot of subtlety here. Meaning that for the duration you are stuck with humans that don't act like real people. It's therefore hard to care about anybody or the outcome. It doesn't really pause to catch its breath which again is impressive for the runtime but after awhile some of the characters are just flat out annoying few if any are what could be described as the three dimensional. This badly needs an edit and yet ironically this is edited down from what must be an insufferable 6 hour version.
It also seems to have an inadvertent anti-Christian agenda. It's interesting to see Christianity through the lens of Japan, but if this was better known there would be a justifiable outcry. After seeing this recently after watching Heretic. Which really did its homework, it's obvious the film makers have very little grasp of what Christianity actually is and have apparently gone on to the summary paragraph of the Wikipedia page and made it up from there. It absolutely could be considered culturally insensitive.
Brave, bold, unique film making, impossible to pigeon hole. You're never sure what's going to happen next. But that's not the same thing as saying it's enjoyable or worth your time.
There's an entire and extended sequence that could only be described as a training montage, but while it has elements of martial arts, it's ultimately to take up skirt photos with the images accompanied by the classical piece Belero. This then is an acquired taste. Japanese comedy of the cult kind. This is a lot of zany for nearly 4 hours. For example, this is the first movie where I've actually seen a close-up of a man's erection being cut off with a pair of scissors and instantly showering a room with crimson blood. Indeed there are more hard-ons in this film than I was expecting.
The acting is as heightened as the script. It's not a lot of subtlety here. Meaning that for the duration you are stuck with humans that don't act like real people. It's therefore hard to care about anybody or the outcome. It doesn't really pause to catch its breath which again is impressive for the runtime but after awhile some of the characters are just flat out annoying few if any are what could be described as the three dimensional. This badly needs an edit and yet ironically this is edited down from what must be an insufferable 6 hour version.
It also seems to have an inadvertent anti-Christian agenda. It's interesting to see Christianity through the lens of Japan, but if this was better known there would be a justifiable outcry. After seeing this recently after watching Heretic. Which really did its homework, it's obvious the film makers have very little grasp of what Christianity actually is and have apparently gone on to the summary paragraph of the Wikipedia page and made it up from there. It absolutely could be considered culturally insensitive.
Brave, bold, unique film making, impossible to pigeon hole. You're never sure what's going to happen next. But that's not the same thing as saying it's enjoyable or worth your time.
With The Raid films, Gareth Evans proved he was an exceptional action director. His creation of Gangs of London proved that when he wasn't directing fights, he wanted melodrama as the only tone he's looking for.
With Havoc we get more of the same. Tom Hardy plays the a cynical cop who is a poor father, a character type you have seen 100 times before. There is too much mediocre dramatic scenes and not enough action. That does change as the film evolves but it strengths lie in the shooting not dialogue or interesting narrative. The larger action set pieces such as the chase at the beginning are stylistically odd. The digital comp shots make elements look more like something out of a video game rather than from a film with a decent budget. The less vehicular orientated action is up to Evans's usual kinetic best, it's visceral and intense.
Want to see Tom Hardy do the Raid then you will be happy, but not amazed. Want to see what Edwards can do with more money and a talented (in some cases Oscar winning or nominated) cast it's underwhelming.
An enjoyable action flick which is less than the sum of its parts.
With Havoc we get more of the same. Tom Hardy plays the a cynical cop who is a poor father, a character type you have seen 100 times before. There is too much mediocre dramatic scenes and not enough action. That does change as the film evolves but it strengths lie in the shooting not dialogue or interesting narrative. The larger action set pieces such as the chase at the beginning are stylistically odd. The digital comp shots make elements look more like something out of a video game rather than from a film with a decent budget. The less vehicular orientated action is up to Evans's usual kinetic best, it's visceral and intense.
Want to see Tom Hardy do the Raid then you will be happy, but not amazed. Want to see what Edwards can do with more money and a talented (in some cases Oscar winning or nominated) cast it's underwhelming.
An enjoyable action flick which is less than the sum of its parts.
The debate over which is the greatest war film of all time usually boils down to Apocalypse Now and Saving Private Ryan. I'd agree, but this is number 3.
There are hundreds of war films- most are adequate, a few are awful and a tiny number are classics. So what makes this an instant classic?
It's the way it eschews every cliche in the movie play book.
Firstly, while the film opens with a music video (to show the soldiers are comrades and also fundamentally normal young men) there is no music. Platoon is associated with Adagio for Strings and Elias's death is pure cinema but here we see real life. Scary, sad, tense events unfold and there's no soundtrack telling you how to feel.
One of the complaints I've heard veterans state about any war film is it jumps to the interesting bits. It doesn't show that soldiering, even in a major conflict, is largely sitting about and waiting. Here the first third of the film is assessment and observation. Never dull it is the antithesis to the action packed shock that you would get in most films about war by the time you're a third of the way in.
The next cliche challenged is the new guy in the squad who gets to be the proxy to the viewer and receives the exposition. In this, don't know military jargon? It's not going to be explained to you, but you get the idea.
Third cinema myth busted. When there are detonations, they tend to be those orangey greasy pyrotechnics. That is not actually what high explosives or a hand grenade detonation would look like. Here we get dust, and lots of debris. I've seen footage from wars, this is accurate. There are times when you can feel the grit in your teeth.
Finally, the wounded man. While, not quite shot in real time this is close to real time. When somebody is seriously injured, they scream, for minutes on end. It gets into your head as I'm sure it did to the men who were there (by comparison and most other films we get a moment of it and then we move onto the next event, here it lingers). We see the difficulty of locating a wound, the errors that can be made in administering morphine or applying a tourniquet. We know that trousers can be cut away to access a leg wound. But here, for the first time in any war movie that I can think of, while they are tending to the wound on his thigh, his genitalia are also on display. It's not there for shock value or is even commented upon but again this is what would happen in those real situations.
I am not a vet but the men involved in the real incident co-wrote and co-directed this. This is cinema filmed as a documentary. It makes no judgements or political statements on why Americans were fighting in Iraq in the early 21st century. But if anybody is going to think about joining the army, they might want to see this first and ask themselves do I want to go through that?
Visceral, essential, confident filmmaking.
There are hundreds of war films- most are adequate, a few are awful and a tiny number are classics. So what makes this an instant classic?
It's the way it eschews every cliche in the movie play book.
Firstly, while the film opens with a music video (to show the soldiers are comrades and also fundamentally normal young men) there is no music. Platoon is associated with Adagio for Strings and Elias's death is pure cinema but here we see real life. Scary, sad, tense events unfold and there's no soundtrack telling you how to feel.
One of the complaints I've heard veterans state about any war film is it jumps to the interesting bits. It doesn't show that soldiering, even in a major conflict, is largely sitting about and waiting. Here the first third of the film is assessment and observation. Never dull it is the antithesis to the action packed shock that you would get in most films about war by the time you're a third of the way in.
The next cliche challenged is the new guy in the squad who gets to be the proxy to the viewer and receives the exposition. In this, don't know military jargon? It's not going to be explained to you, but you get the idea.
Third cinema myth busted. When there are detonations, they tend to be those orangey greasy pyrotechnics. That is not actually what high explosives or a hand grenade detonation would look like. Here we get dust, and lots of debris. I've seen footage from wars, this is accurate. There are times when you can feel the grit in your teeth.
Finally, the wounded man. While, not quite shot in real time this is close to real time. When somebody is seriously injured, they scream, for minutes on end. It gets into your head as I'm sure it did to the men who were there (by comparison and most other films we get a moment of it and then we move onto the next event, here it lingers). We see the difficulty of locating a wound, the errors that can be made in administering morphine or applying a tourniquet. We know that trousers can be cut away to access a leg wound. But here, for the first time in any war movie that I can think of, while they are tending to the wound on his thigh, his genitalia are also on display. It's not there for shock value or is even commented upon but again this is what would happen in those real situations.
I am not a vet but the men involved in the real incident co-wrote and co-directed this. This is cinema filmed as a documentary. It makes no judgements or political statements on why Americans were fighting in Iraq in the early 21st century. But if anybody is going to think about joining the army, they might want to see this first and ask themselves do I want to go through that?
Visceral, essential, confident filmmaking.
Peaky boxers...
Steven Knight comes up with yet another historical drama. Not as teeth grindingly anachronistic as either Peaky or SAS but then again it's hard to make it any more anachronistic.
The idea is simple- a black man from the West Indies comes to London to find fame as a lion tamer...or at a push a boxer. He meets the ever impressive and here swole Stephen Graham first they are rivals then they become frenemies.
We also meet the Forty elephants a real all female Victorian gang. All of this is wrapped up in sumptuous costumes and impressive locations and sets.
So why not a glowing review? Because with this set up this should be fun but everyone grimaces their way through each episode so po-faced it sucks any entertainment out of what doesn't need to be a brooding drama. If it had some light with the shade this would be much better. I eventually stopped watching. I just didn't care about any of the characters because they were all miserable and cynical and self serving. This isn't Shakespeare it is allowed to be fun. It's all one note, admittedly a very fine note, played over and over again.
Steven Knight comes up with yet another historical drama. Not as teeth grindingly anachronistic as either Peaky or SAS but then again it's hard to make it any more anachronistic.
The idea is simple- a black man from the West Indies comes to London to find fame as a lion tamer...or at a push a boxer. He meets the ever impressive and here swole Stephen Graham first they are rivals then they become frenemies.
We also meet the Forty elephants a real all female Victorian gang. All of this is wrapped up in sumptuous costumes and impressive locations and sets.
So why not a glowing review? Because with this set up this should be fun but everyone grimaces their way through each episode so po-faced it sucks any entertainment out of what doesn't need to be a brooding drama. If it had some light with the shade this would be much better. I eventually stopped watching. I just didn't care about any of the characters because they were all miserable and cynical and self serving. This isn't Shakespeare it is allowed to be fun. It's all one note, admittedly a very fine note, played over and over again.
A tough one to review, Shakespeare is the genuine greatest of all time. But he's not my thing. Wells throws his all into the performance of the titular character. Falstaff appears in the hollow crown series of plays and its genius to pull this fascinating character out of multiple plays to create a bespoke story. The acting is excellent, you believe people are speaking this verse despite the fact it is being made in the era of the Beatles.
Then there's the cinematography, an incredible tour-de-force of innovative compositions and novel blocking. Wells also picks genuine medieval locations giving the film a realistic texture to it.
An epic battle at the midpoint is the most visceral portrayed on screen of a Shakespeare play (excluding Ran- if you think that counts). It's one of the great battle scenes showing medieval combat. However if you struggle with Shakespearean verse, like me, you're screwed.
Technically perfect, all elements are on point but it does come with the above warning.
Then there's the cinematography, an incredible tour-de-force of innovative compositions and novel blocking. Wells also picks genuine medieval locations giving the film a realistic texture to it.
An epic battle at the midpoint is the most visceral portrayed on screen of a Shakespeare play (excluding Ran- if you think that counts). It's one of the great battle scenes showing medieval combat. However if you struggle with Shakespearean verse, like me, you're screwed.
Technically perfect, all elements are on point but it does come with the above warning.
The opening 10 minute tracking shot all done in 1 take against the backdrop of a Scandinavian coast is laying down the marker by Tarkovsky of his directorial skill. He's the master of shot composition and light, moving the camera with the subtlety of an artist's brush strokes.
It's another meditation on a sci-fi topic. With Stalker it was about an alien zone, here it's world war three. But the subject isn't the point. Tarkovsky makes reviewers use phrases like "visual mood poem". It is apt but also a warning. This is the cinematic equivalent of eating a bowl of kale. Incredibly good for you, no junk allowed but ZERO fun.
This is exactly the sort of film that critics rave about so a few curious members of the general public checks out and puts them off art house or world cinema.
People monologue about philosophy, you know like normal people do. Scenes are glacial in their pace, it's all very hard work and virtually the definition of pretentious. Here image is more important than narrative. Slow Cinema's attitude is how dare you want to be entertained, the images should be enough. But films are not paintings. I would respond that a movie can be beautiful AND entertaining, narrative is not anathema to quality.
It is gorgeous though.
It's another meditation on a sci-fi topic. With Stalker it was about an alien zone, here it's world war three. But the subject isn't the point. Tarkovsky makes reviewers use phrases like "visual mood poem". It is apt but also a warning. This is the cinematic equivalent of eating a bowl of kale. Incredibly good for you, no junk allowed but ZERO fun.
This is exactly the sort of film that critics rave about so a few curious members of the general public checks out and puts them off art house or world cinema.
People monologue about philosophy, you know like normal people do. Scenes are glacial in their pace, it's all very hard work and virtually the definition of pretentious. Here image is more important than narrative. Slow Cinema's attitude is how dare you want to be entertained, the images should be enough. But films are not paintings. I would respond that a movie can be beautiful AND entertaining, narrative is not anathema to quality.
It is gorgeous though.
Essentially Roger Deakins show reel. About 15 minutes in there's a train robbery at night and it could be the most beautiful five minutes of movie ever created. To all future cinematographers, watch this film if you can get your movie to look as good as this, congratulations you have mastered your art. But pretty pictures aren't the only thing that make a movie.
The film is packed with talent, there is not a second in the film's run time where it does not look achingly gorgeous and Brad Pitt clearly relishes being the focus as one of the titular characters and a legend from the old west.
The story? Well, it's summarised in the unwieldily long and literal title. This is the Western as art house. Or The best Terrence Malick movie never made by him.
The issue is the glacial speed and the over reliance on endlessly long scenes of fairly banal conversations. If it was any slower, it would be playing backwards. It could work as a character study but the VoiceOver tells you everything you need to know so the audience is being spoon fed. Also clocking in at nearly 2 hours 45 minutes it is unnecessarily long for something that could be summarised as a young man hero worships an outlaw but then betrays him.
The film is like a conversation with a supermodel about macro economics, utterly beautiful but totally boring.
The film is packed with talent, there is not a second in the film's run time where it does not look achingly gorgeous and Brad Pitt clearly relishes being the focus as one of the titular characters and a legend from the old west.
The story? Well, it's summarised in the unwieldily long and literal title. This is the Western as art house. Or The best Terrence Malick movie never made by him.
The issue is the glacial speed and the over reliance on endlessly long scenes of fairly banal conversations. If it was any slower, it would be playing backwards. It could work as a character study but the VoiceOver tells you everything you need to know so the audience is being spoon fed. Also clocking in at nearly 2 hours 45 minutes it is unnecessarily long for something that could be summarised as a young man hero worships an outlaw but then betrays him.
The film is like a conversation with a supermodel about macro economics, utterly beautiful but totally boring.
After all the Oscar nominations, I ignored multiple friends who had seen it and hated it and sat down to decide to have an opinion myself. It gets marks for bravery, but I don't know what this film wants to be.
It's very hard to take seriously when everybody burst into song and choreographed dance. It isn't entertaining enough to be a great musical (which all have basic plots). I get that for a lot of people in Mexico the fact that this is directed by Frenchman and none of the main actors are Mexican makes this feel fake to them. It feels fake to me and I live in England!
The songs aren't catchy (a critical flaw in a musical), this feels like this year's Saltburn or Cats. Who is this for? For the average person on the streets there are too many ideas here to make it coherent. It's tonally all over the place which again is a huge problem. Everybody involved is patting themselves on the backs being very pleased with themselves forgetting that the film itself fails in every category it's trying in.
If this wins a bunch of Oscars, it'll be a bit like Crash. A sign of the disconnect between what Hollywood thinks people want and what people actually consider either good or entertaining.
The cinematic equivalent of the Emperor's new clothes.
It's very hard to take seriously when everybody burst into song and choreographed dance. It isn't entertaining enough to be a great musical (which all have basic plots). I get that for a lot of people in Mexico the fact that this is directed by Frenchman and none of the main actors are Mexican makes this feel fake to them. It feels fake to me and I live in England!
The songs aren't catchy (a critical flaw in a musical), this feels like this year's Saltburn or Cats. Who is this for? For the average person on the streets there are too many ideas here to make it coherent. It's tonally all over the place which again is a huge problem. Everybody involved is patting themselves on the backs being very pleased with themselves forgetting that the film itself fails in every category it's trying in.
If this wins a bunch of Oscars, it'll be a bit like Crash. A sign of the disconnect between what Hollywood thinks people want and what people actually consider either good or entertaining.
The cinematic equivalent of the Emperor's new clothes.
Game adaptations are usually hot garbage. This however is still the greatest video game adaptation of all time. Pushing aside the MOBA game play and instead focussing in on some of the rogue's gallery of characters, the series build to a hugely ambitious and highly successful narrative. It's also satisfyingly diverse with plenty of female and gay characters with lots of different races in the story. But unlike a lot of stories paying lip service to diversity, here it's earned.
We see events unfolding from multiple different view points. Due to the faction's motives some times they win, other times they lose. Nobody is entirely good or bad. It's like an animated game of thrones.
Which brings me to the peerless animation. Anyone can make things pretty, but innovative, mixing styles and innovating the medium, this is the most ambitious, artistic, original and and intelligent series ever created.
We see events unfolding from multiple different view points. Due to the faction's motives some times they win, other times they lose. Nobody is entirely good or bad. It's like an animated game of thrones.
Which brings me to the peerless animation. Anyone can make things pretty, but innovative, mixing styles and innovating the medium, this is the most ambitious, artistic, original and and intelligent series ever created.
They say when considering to convert a book into a film each page is a minute. So to make a 10 part series you'd need a book of around 500 pages and as the original was your typical airport thriller that means a LOT of padding.
The central idea is timeless- a trained sniper hunting down a hard to reach target. Only this time we get more emphasis on the agent hunting him down. That works, finding out about both of their family lives does not. In the case of the jackal, his wife, mother in law and brother in law try breaking into his secret lair. They become the three stooges. It's embarrassing.
In the original it shows the meticulous detail of the planning, while that is here, they seem to have half read an article on sniping. They go to great lengths to show hard it is to pull off a long range shot taking into account the delay before firing and reaching the target. But there's something called bullet drop where over distance the bullet starts to fall. So to have every shot hitting right in the centre of his scope is an odd error.
Bottom line if this had been a 6 part story it would have been very tense, maybe even a classic, but as it is there are good bits, silly bits, boring bits and very dumb bits.
The central idea is timeless- a trained sniper hunting down a hard to reach target. Only this time we get more emphasis on the agent hunting him down. That works, finding out about both of their family lives does not. In the case of the jackal, his wife, mother in law and brother in law try breaking into his secret lair. They become the three stooges. It's embarrassing.
In the original it shows the meticulous detail of the planning, while that is here, they seem to have half read an article on sniping. They go to great lengths to show hard it is to pull off a long range shot taking into account the delay before firing and reaching the target. But there's something called bullet drop where over distance the bullet starts to fall. So to have every shot hitting right in the centre of his scope is an odd error.
Bottom line if this had been a 6 part story it would have been very tense, maybe even a classic, but as it is there are good bits, silly bits, boring bits and very dumb bits.
Everything you have heard about the camera were in cinema photography is true. This is simply one of the best looking, best directed films you will ever see. However, a film isn't just pretty pictures.
What we have is a propaganda piece that shows how corrupt Cuba was before the revolution and how great communism is. Whatever you may think of the politics it means that this is leaning more on the message than it is in terms of character. It's four different stories that goes on for over two hours. Literally every word gets an audio translation into Russian which was important in the 1960s in the Soviet union but is distracting today and reminds you that this is not meant to be entertainment-this is education.
The scenes are too long, the stories are too slight, you know where they're going the moment they start and the acting is totally adequate. So in terms of plot, character development and narrative pace this film is substandard. It's pretty... Pretty dull.
What we have is a propaganda piece that shows how corrupt Cuba was before the revolution and how great communism is. Whatever you may think of the politics it means that this is leaning more on the message than it is in terms of character. It's four different stories that goes on for over two hours. Literally every word gets an audio translation into Russian which was important in the 1960s in the Soviet union but is distracting today and reminds you that this is not meant to be entertainment-this is education.
The scenes are too long, the stories are too slight, you know where they're going the moment they start and the acting is totally adequate. So in terms of plot, character development and narrative pace this film is substandard. It's pretty... Pretty dull.
The pitch for this is it's the Greek myths in the modern world. Good idea and what the character Monk wrote about in American Fiction.
But that is not what you're getting. It's set on Crete (Krete in the show for unknown reasons). Went there last year and it doesn't look like Florida. The rules of this world are a mess. The ancient Greeks knew the gods walked among them, here the humans seem surprised. At one point a character goes to buy a gun in a kiosk. There are guns sprayed bright pink and he gets a hand gun immediately- is this Fornite?
Then there's the pervasive sense of self satisfaction. This is not the first time myths have been given a modern spin. Dionysus kisses a guy and a girl in a club...oh edgey. Except it would have been completely normal in Ancient Greek society and the shot's been done in a dozen other shows. Characters are introduced in a voice over with on screen captions, like Guy Ritchie was doing 25 years ago.
A lot of it looks like The Burnt City, an amazing interactive theatre experience in London which took the legend of Troy...and set it in the 20th century.
The list of lazy tropes and cliches goes on and on. This series is not as clever or innovative as it thinks it is.
But that is not what you're getting. It's set on Crete (Krete in the show for unknown reasons). Went there last year and it doesn't look like Florida. The rules of this world are a mess. The ancient Greeks knew the gods walked among them, here the humans seem surprised. At one point a character goes to buy a gun in a kiosk. There are guns sprayed bright pink and he gets a hand gun immediately- is this Fornite?
Then there's the pervasive sense of self satisfaction. This is not the first time myths have been given a modern spin. Dionysus kisses a guy and a girl in a club...oh edgey. Except it would have been completely normal in Ancient Greek society and the shot's been done in a dozen other shows. Characters are introduced in a voice over with on screen captions, like Guy Ritchie was doing 25 years ago.
A lot of it looks like The Burnt City, an amazing interactive theatre experience in London which took the legend of Troy...and set it in the 20th century.
The list of lazy tropes and cliches goes on and on. This series is not as clever or innovative as it thinks it is.
At over five hours, it can't be consistent throughout. It's best to think of it as various vignettes of two friends growing up in the first half of the 20th century in Italy. The cast is amazing (special shout out to the luminous duo of Depardieu and De Niro- although they only really arrive 90 minutes in) with thousands of extras and thousands of costumes. Plus some, let's call it "European" attitudes to child nudity and sexual encounters. And while it absolutely should intellectually savage fascism, its uncritical views of socialism and communism are a little naïve.
The direction is sumptuous, epic is sometimes an understatement, but some areas of the film are better than others. Its ambition has rarely been matched in the whole of cinema history but that doesn't mean the project is wholly successful. And does any story really need 5+ hours? For example first 90 minutes could have been condensed into 10 minutes of flash backs. And almost every scene gets to its point and then keeps going for a bit more. Fine a few times but a more disciplined edit could have said the same thing in 3 1/2 hours.
The direction is sumptuous, epic is sometimes an understatement, but some areas of the film are better than others. Its ambition has rarely been matched in the whole of cinema history but that doesn't mean the project is wholly successful. And does any story really need 5+ hours? For example first 90 minutes could have been condensed into 10 minutes of flash backs. And almost every scene gets to its point and then keeps going for a bit more. Fine a few times but a more disciplined edit could have said the same thing in 3 1/2 hours.
What this gets credit for is trying something different. This is fundamentally a murder mystery a very popular format telling a story but one that's never been in the Star Wars universe before. Also, this is set 100 years before the more familiar events so therefore there will be no usual characters, except possibly a cameo from Yoda at some point.
The production budget is there for all to see. A huge amount of effort has gone into it. But it being a century earlier, it doesn't feel like it's in a different time to the other events. They could've added a slight steam punk element to it or other flavours, instead you could comfortably see these characters walking along with Luke Skywalker. So that idea hasn't really worked.
People talk about the "agenda". I think what they mean is there is a noticeable absence of any white men. It does seem a deliberate choice but it's not like the entire program is talking about issues that really don't have a lot to do with Star Wars. The cast is all good although the script is pedestrian. Saying that though Star Wars was never known for its sophisticated plots or dialogue. What it is, is a very high value production of a murder mystery, and in regards to that it's fine. Personally, it's not gripping enough for me to find out who did it but is it not an unmitigated disaster.
The production budget is there for all to see. A huge amount of effort has gone into it. But it being a century earlier, it doesn't feel like it's in a different time to the other events. They could've added a slight steam punk element to it or other flavours, instead you could comfortably see these characters walking along with Luke Skywalker. So that idea hasn't really worked.
People talk about the "agenda". I think what they mean is there is a noticeable absence of any white men. It does seem a deliberate choice but it's not like the entire program is talking about issues that really don't have a lot to do with Star Wars. The cast is all good although the script is pedestrian. Saying that though Star Wars was never known for its sophisticated plots or dialogue. What it is, is a very high value production of a murder mystery, and in regards to that it's fine. Personally, it's not gripping enough for me to find out who did it but is it not an unmitigated disaster.
This film simply thinks it's clever than it actually is. It's a satire about the toxicity of the comment sections of social media and its point is made in the first two minutes, but it doesn't really have anything to add to that point.
With satire comes comedy, There are a couple of funny jokes in it, but there aren't enough and most of those present are weak.
The characters are little more than tropes, and yet they even have the audacity to say that this isn't the usual story about the nerd chasing the girl, but that's exactly what it is.
Critically though this is a movie with action in it. There's no doubt that some of the directorial flair and visuals are different. But different doesn't make it better. It has the audacity to have the film hard target playing in the background of one scenes. That film has a same basic premise of a man being hunted for sport , except it is superior in every possible way. Critically the action scenes are badly directed with too much frenetic editing and no real sense of tension or storytelling to them. Considering this is coming out in the era of John Wick it pails by comparison.
With satire comes comedy, There are a couple of funny jokes in it, but there aren't enough and most of those present are weak.
The characters are little more than tropes, and yet they even have the audacity to say that this isn't the usual story about the nerd chasing the girl, but that's exactly what it is.
Critically though this is a movie with action in it. There's no doubt that some of the directorial flair and visuals are different. But different doesn't make it better. It has the audacity to have the film hard target playing in the background of one scenes. That film has a same basic premise of a man being hunted for sport , except it is superior in every possible way. Critically the action scenes are badly directed with too much frenetic editing and no real sense of tension or storytelling to them. Considering this is coming out in the era of John Wick it pails by comparison.
Foster is one of the greatest actors of all time and doesn't know how to give a bad performance. Reid is a revelation and I can't wait to see what she does next. But the screen writers are the BIG problem.
Fortitude and The Thing are great, but they don't need a 2024 remix. True Detective is a mixed bag. Season 1 is peerless, season 2 was seriously underwhelming, season 3 was great but with the original creatives gone season 4 suffers the same issues as 2. It's not fundamentally bad, but it's too derivative and also doesn't know quite what it wants to be.
Season 1 and 3 had the slightest injection of magical realism. Are these hallucinations? Exaggerations? Everything can be explained rationally but there is just the subtlest question marks. Here the whole season has leaned out right into the supernatural. True Detective is not supernatural horror. The solution shouldn't be ghosts, it's rarely satisfying in a detective story and it isn't here. Also the fate of one person makes no sense at all and counts on a group of people not acting in anyway like actual humans. It's not "spur of the moment" it's terrible writing. Unbelievable revelation is stacked on irrational behaviour in this episode. Plus people are freezing to death with no hope only to not be in the next scene- what? Just profoundly disappointing.
An average horror movie stretched over a season of TV that thinks it's much smarter than it is.
Fortitude and The Thing are great, but they don't need a 2024 remix. True Detective is a mixed bag. Season 1 is peerless, season 2 was seriously underwhelming, season 3 was great but with the original creatives gone season 4 suffers the same issues as 2. It's not fundamentally bad, but it's too derivative and also doesn't know quite what it wants to be.
Season 1 and 3 had the slightest injection of magical realism. Are these hallucinations? Exaggerations? Everything can be explained rationally but there is just the subtlest question marks. Here the whole season has leaned out right into the supernatural. True Detective is not supernatural horror. The solution shouldn't be ghosts, it's rarely satisfying in a detective story and it isn't here. Also the fate of one person makes no sense at all and counts on a group of people not acting in anyway like actual humans. It's not "spur of the moment" it's terrible writing. Unbelievable revelation is stacked on irrational behaviour in this episode. Plus people are freezing to death with no hope only to not be in the next scene- what? Just profoundly disappointing.
An average horror movie stretched over a season of TV that thinks it's much smarter than it is.
I saw this for the first time the same week I watched Battle Royale. With the other movie, it's very high concept and very violent, but I much preferred it.
The issue with oldboy is there is an intriguing mystery in the middle of all of this. Why has he been locked up for 15 years? It's a great conceit, but the payoff, personally for me, doesn't work.
The films violence is so heightened it shares more in common with Battle Royale than it does with a great drama. And yet despite the ridiculousness of the central character and the overall plot, nobody is having any fun. Everybody is very serious and the climax for me was overblown melodrama which I didn't believe at all.
The direction is incredible, the very famous scenes are quite rightly highly regarded. But it's quite a long movie for quite a slight idea which you either go with or don't. This movie clearly isn't for everyone it didn't work for me - you have been warned.
The issue with oldboy is there is an intriguing mystery in the middle of all of this. Why has he been locked up for 15 years? It's a great conceit, but the payoff, personally for me, doesn't work.
The films violence is so heightened it shares more in common with Battle Royale than it does with a great drama. And yet despite the ridiculousness of the central character and the overall plot, nobody is having any fun. Everybody is very serious and the climax for me was overblown melodrama which I didn't believe at all.
The direction is incredible, the very famous scenes are quite rightly highly regarded. But it's quite a long movie for quite a slight idea which you either go with or don't. This movie clearly isn't for everyone it didn't work for me - you have been warned.
Netflix is great at drama. This came out about the same time as the genius Fall of the House of Usher. Witcher, Narcos, Orange is the new Black- Netflix gets what it takes to make great drama.
But for documentaries it fails to understand the difference between fact and entertainment. Hancock's Ancient Apocalypse regurgitated uniformly condemned bad history whose theories were discredited decades ago. Having a black Cleopatra is fine in a drama but not a documentary.
This is a long intro to say Netflix has a track record in making things entertaining first and worrying about facts a distant second,
Each episode opens with a disclaimer that it is not scientific but then spends the rest of the run time looking very "sciency".
No consideration is given to benefits of animal products the answer to everything is Veganism. Now we do need to cut down meat in our diets and a balanced, low fat, no processed diet is healthy. But most nutritionists say the same thing- everything in moderation is generally the way to go, including the quest to make the world vegan. Meat and dairy are rich in some nutrients that are very hard to to get from a plant only diet- this point is never conceded. This was funded by an organisation with links to Veganism and is therefore nothing but propaganda for one world view only.
It's not even that entertaining.
But for documentaries it fails to understand the difference between fact and entertainment. Hancock's Ancient Apocalypse regurgitated uniformly condemned bad history whose theories were discredited decades ago. Having a black Cleopatra is fine in a drama but not a documentary.
This is a long intro to say Netflix has a track record in making things entertaining first and worrying about facts a distant second,
Each episode opens with a disclaimer that it is not scientific but then spends the rest of the run time looking very "sciency".
No consideration is given to benefits of animal products the answer to everything is Veganism. Now we do need to cut down meat in our diets and a balanced, low fat, no processed diet is healthy. But most nutritionists say the same thing- everything in moderation is generally the way to go, including the quest to make the world vegan. Meat and dairy are rich in some nutrients that are very hard to to get from a plant only diet- this point is never conceded. This was funded by an organisation with links to Veganism and is therefore nothing but propaganda for one world view only.
It's not even that entertaining.
Beautifully shot, never not gorgeous to look at, with great songs from a generation earlier. So it is cinematic. Everyone is acting even if they are acting as tropes.
The whole thing is totally derivative Fall of the House of Usher, Talented Mr Ripley, Brideshead Revisited, Call me by Your Name are all present and correct. Populated with cardboard cut out characters and I do not believe ANY woman would be turned on by having her menstrual blood put in her mouth. Yup that happens.
Dark comedy- I laugh at anything...except this
Psycho thriller- wasn't thrilled
Satirical commentary- Had nothing to say.
The whole thing is totally derivative Fall of the House of Usher, Talented Mr Ripley, Brideshead Revisited, Call me by Your Name are all present and correct. Populated with cardboard cut out characters and I do not believe ANY woman would be turned on by having her menstrual blood put in her mouth. Yup that happens.
Dark comedy- I laugh at anything...except this
Psycho thriller- wasn't thrilled
Satirical commentary- Had nothing to say.
Hmmm
Site keeps not posting my review so I'll avoid any contentious language and in a way that's the problem.
Doctor Who is a kids show and while inclusivity should be taught at an early age, the show is fundamentally about being chased down corridors by monsters. No show like this should haul on the brakes to stop the story for the lesson of the week. At least He-Man had the decency to do that at the end of the episode after the story was done.
If the run time was more focussed on entertaining rather than educating it would have been 8 stars the opening monologue by Tennant really makes you want to see what happens next. But there are too many lectures that kill the narrative momentum leading to a ludicrous climax, and this show is about a time travelling Alien!
Site keeps not posting my review so I'll avoid any contentious language and in a way that's the problem.
Doctor Who is a kids show and while inclusivity should be taught at an early age, the show is fundamentally about being chased down corridors by monsters. No show like this should haul on the brakes to stop the story for the lesson of the week. At least He-Man had the decency to do that at the end of the episode after the story was done.
If the run time was more focussed on entertaining rather than educating it would have been 8 stars the opening monologue by Tennant really makes you want to see what happens next. But there are too many lectures that kill the narrative momentum leading to a ludicrous climax, and this show is about a time travelling Alien!
Could silent night, be the world's first art house action movie? Directed by the action, Master John Woo who spent nearly 20 years making historical drama films in China returns to the genre that put him on the map in the first place. Nobody can dispute the peerless action drama of the likes of hard boiled, hard target and face off. But those were all long time ago.
I don't know why he decided to make another American movie after such a long hiatus, but he is back with an intriguing idea of doing a film with no dialogue at all. There are a few moments of showing newspaper cuttings or texts to add a little bit of flavour, but he wanted to come up with an idea of explaining an entire story with no dialogue, and it works. The idea of a bereaved father going for revenge and slowly coming up with his plan is really intriguing and Woo does it extremely well. Let's be honest a lot of action dialogue is really there to set up the conflict and is often criticised for being cheesy.
The problem is after an opening action scene when there is nothing except seeing the father train there isn't enough in this film. It could've really of done with a big action sequence in the middle to reassure you. With no funny dialogue no plot twist you've seen all of this done before in a more entertaining way and without the dialogue no matter how well done it is it is, I'm sorry to say, a bit dull. When the action comes, it's good, but it isn't peak Woo.
It turns out there's a reason why we have dialogue in movies after all.
I don't know why he decided to make another American movie after such a long hiatus, but he is back with an intriguing idea of doing a film with no dialogue at all. There are a few moments of showing newspaper cuttings or texts to add a little bit of flavour, but he wanted to come up with an idea of explaining an entire story with no dialogue, and it works. The idea of a bereaved father going for revenge and slowly coming up with his plan is really intriguing and Woo does it extremely well. Let's be honest a lot of action dialogue is really there to set up the conflict and is often criticised for being cheesy.
The problem is after an opening action scene when there is nothing except seeing the father train there isn't enough in this film. It could've really of done with a big action sequence in the middle to reassure you. With no funny dialogue no plot twist you've seen all of this done before in a more entertaining way and without the dialogue no matter how well done it is it is, I'm sorry to say, a bit dull. When the action comes, it's good, but it isn't peak Woo.
It turns out there's a reason why we have dialogue in movies after all.
As many other reviews have stated trying to get a truly plot hole free time travel story is notoriously difficult. People then seem to give it a pass. There is no doubt that money has been spent on good actors and lavish sets. But to be honest, this is a lot of effort for something that's a bit mediocre.
For starters, I don't believe that any of the four central police officers trying to solve this crime are real people. You can almost imagine how proud the screen writers were coming up with characters like "he's a cop in World War II, but he's also Jewish!" That's just ...so clever... here have an Emmy. Everyone of the four police officers are a type plus a little Twist. Some people may say that that's good writing but it's so formulaic it comes across as insincere.
Then they're all the historical inaccuracies, this is important for something that covers 160 years. It very explicitly says the events during World War II are in 1941, it then shows that London being bombed in the Blitz, which happened in 1940. Changing the date would cost nothing, or change the events if it has to be 1941. It doesn't matter which period we're talking about everybody talks the same way. There is no way the Victorian police officer in 1890 would talk the same way we do today. It's almost like the writers had a clever idea and were forced to populate the idea with AI generated dramatic characters.
Then they're all the cliches. Back to World War II. There was a scene in the second episode where the cop lights up a cigar waiting in the dark, sitting in a chair. It's very cool. He then surprises a man as he walks into the room. There is no way a person could walk into a room and not smell a cigar. You might think this is minor, but this sort of thing happens A LOT. My issue is there are better time travel dramas that don't make these sorts of amateurish errors.
Finally, without giving anything away, the central Twist isn't very well explained with numerous plot holes so frankly there are better stories out there. I would rather watch Looper or back to the future or in particular Dark again than watch this.
For starters, I don't believe that any of the four central police officers trying to solve this crime are real people. You can almost imagine how proud the screen writers were coming up with characters like "he's a cop in World War II, but he's also Jewish!" That's just ...so clever... here have an Emmy. Everyone of the four police officers are a type plus a little Twist. Some people may say that that's good writing but it's so formulaic it comes across as insincere.
Then they're all the historical inaccuracies, this is important for something that covers 160 years. It very explicitly says the events during World War II are in 1941, it then shows that London being bombed in the Blitz, which happened in 1940. Changing the date would cost nothing, or change the events if it has to be 1941. It doesn't matter which period we're talking about everybody talks the same way. There is no way the Victorian police officer in 1890 would talk the same way we do today. It's almost like the writers had a clever idea and were forced to populate the idea with AI generated dramatic characters.
Then they're all the cliches. Back to World War II. There was a scene in the second episode where the cop lights up a cigar waiting in the dark, sitting in a chair. It's very cool. He then surprises a man as he walks into the room. There is no way a person could walk into a room and not smell a cigar. You might think this is minor, but this sort of thing happens A LOT. My issue is there are better time travel dramas that don't make these sorts of amateurish errors.
Finally, without giving anything away, the central Twist isn't very well explained with numerous plot holes so frankly there are better stories out there. I would rather watch Looper or back to the future or in particular Dark again than watch this.
From the director of Rogue One, one of the best, most thoughtful Star Wars films comes a completely new setting for yet more grand scale world building with an eye on morality, philosophy and even spirituality.
It the middle of the 21st century and America is at war with AI. Not other nations, but the "simulants" which are basically AI robots. These AIs live in harmony in New Asia which covers countries like Thailand, Vietnam and Nepal. The director shot on location and then added just enough post production visual effects to make you believe that you are looking at the real world which has evolved into a human, AI hybrid.
This film always looks stunning but there is plenty of story and fleshed out characters to inhabit it. The acting is always believable particularly the main AI girl who was played by a remarkable 7 year old actress. This is not style over substance. If there's one issue is Edwards the director has clearly been a little too inspired by the likes of Akira, Blade Runner, District 9 and Platoon. Saying that, that is a list of great films and meshed together you get something genuinely original.
It's heavily anti-military industrial complex and at times even has a sense of humour (so it's not all po faced and earnest). Also this movie has a beginning, middle and end. No cliff hangers for a sequel this is a movie that tells 1 story- a real revelation in the modern world.
It the middle of the 21st century and America is at war with AI. Not other nations, but the "simulants" which are basically AI robots. These AIs live in harmony in New Asia which covers countries like Thailand, Vietnam and Nepal. The director shot on location and then added just enough post production visual effects to make you believe that you are looking at the real world which has evolved into a human, AI hybrid.
This film always looks stunning but there is plenty of story and fleshed out characters to inhabit it. The acting is always believable particularly the main AI girl who was played by a remarkable 7 year old actress. This is not style over substance. If there's one issue is Edwards the director has clearly been a little too inspired by the likes of Akira, Blade Runner, District 9 and Platoon. Saying that, that is a list of great films and meshed together you get something genuinely original.
It's heavily anti-military industrial complex and at times even has a sense of humour (so it's not all po faced and earnest). Also this movie has a beginning, middle and end. No cliff hangers for a sequel this is a movie that tells 1 story- a real revelation in the modern world.