bot-kao-104-230568
Joined Sep 2014
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings33
bot-kao-104-230568's rating
Reviews10
bot-kao-104-230568's rating
Within the first five minutes of the sequel to Joker: Folie à Deux, I started to feel annoyed. Bad start. Fifteen minutes after, I started thinking oh ok, I can sort of understand why they've decided to add some musical numbers. But then, and for the rest of the 2hr 18 minutes film I kept asking myself what the actual (expletive) am I watching here?!? This is truly awful!
I really enjoyed the first film and whilst I think it took a reductionist approach to mental illness I still believe that the first film was well directed, with some of the visuals being pure magic at times. Joaquin Phoenix was brilliant, the supporting cast led by Robert de Niro was excellent.
Folie à Deux is, simply put, a pointless film and I expect it to be a monumental flop. I can only imagine the early development workshops for this film. 'How about we take our celebrated film in a completely different direction! Let's not have a story or a plot to drive it, let's chuck in Lady Gaga because she's still appealing to 12% of our preferred demographic meaning that we can turn this into a musical, but (here's the key concept) we'll only include the most irritating music imaginable.' To which the Executive Producers respond: 'I like it!'
An angry score of 2 stars because I'm generous. 1 star each for Joaquin Phoenix for his portrayal of a sad, weak and pathetic joker and Lady Gaga who was surprisingly good (pointless but good). Anyone who enjoyed the original will in all likelihood hate this sequel. Save your money, let it flop.
I really enjoyed the first film and whilst I think it took a reductionist approach to mental illness I still believe that the first film was well directed, with some of the visuals being pure magic at times. Joaquin Phoenix was brilliant, the supporting cast led by Robert de Niro was excellent.
Folie à Deux is, simply put, a pointless film and I expect it to be a monumental flop. I can only imagine the early development workshops for this film. 'How about we take our celebrated film in a completely different direction! Let's not have a story or a plot to drive it, let's chuck in Lady Gaga because she's still appealing to 12% of our preferred demographic meaning that we can turn this into a musical, but (here's the key concept) we'll only include the most irritating music imaginable.' To which the Executive Producers respond: 'I like it!'
An angry score of 2 stars because I'm generous. 1 star each for Joaquin Phoenix for his portrayal of a sad, weak and pathetic joker and Lady Gaga who was surprisingly good (pointless but good). Anyone who enjoyed the original will in all likelihood hate this sequel. Save your money, let it flop.
Finally managed to see the latest interpretation of the Batman. And yes this is a good one, but not without its flaws.
First, the cast is great. I was surprised by how much I liked seeing Robert Pattinson as the Batman though I don't feel as if he's done enough as Bruce Wayne. The always dependable Paul Dano is a standout as the Riddler. He is a terrific actor and will forever be typecast as the unstable loony bin, but he can be forgiven as he does it so effortlessly.
Colin Farrell as the penguin, John Turtorro as Falcone, Jeffrey Wright as Lt Gordon and Andy Serkis as Alfred are all excellent and bring something a little different to their roles. Less impressive though was Zoe Kravitz as cat woman. She looked fantastic in her costume but walks quite awkwardly especially in the long shots.
Talking about shots, the director's visual rendition of Gotham is one depicting social illness. It is wonderfully done. Everything about it looks dirty, decaying, grimy, cold and essentially diseased. The look works well and also extends to the bat cave where everything looks untidy. This is the Batman without the technology fitouts from Lucius Fox, so he's more of a DIY, man cave dwelling and clearly not well-polished Batman. Again, this works so well and I love the sound used when the Batman moves. This is not a silent, ninja type character. Patterson's version is that of young(ish), moody, literally clunky, slightly brutish dark knight who hasn't quite developed the psychotic streak of the comics that I tend to gravitate to. There are some hints of that extreme violence in this film (which at times got my heart thumping) and I do hope that Matt Reeves returns as director to flesh this out a bit more in the future films.
Christopher Nolan's trilogy is amazing and will be hard to beat but Reeves' version stands on its own as a perfectly good film. I would find it hard to compare this film with Nolan's epic trilogy and Tim Burton's gothic and stylised version (note: I refuse to mention the awful films by Joel Schumacher), but more to the point why would I want to make the comparison? What was missing from Nolan's and Burton's is a strong detective story which Reeves does very well.
A warning, this is a long film and covers a lot of ground. This is to me a flaw in that the film is very well directed with a great story and a good script, but I'm not sure that the final editing was quite right. Also if you are not familiar with Batman lore, you may be asking questions about characters mentioned in the film after the end credits roll. I sense that you would appreciate this more if you have read some of the seminal works by the likes of Frank Miller (Year One), and Jeph Loeb (the Long Hallowe'en).
One final thing, Nirvana's song 'something in the way' was used to great effect. Seriously enjoyed this latest depiction of a great DC character.
First, the cast is great. I was surprised by how much I liked seeing Robert Pattinson as the Batman though I don't feel as if he's done enough as Bruce Wayne. The always dependable Paul Dano is a standout as the Riddler. He is a terrific actor and will forever be typecast as the unstable loony bin, but he can be forgiven as he does it so effortlessly.
Colin Farrell as the penguin, John Turtorro as Falcone, Jeffrey Wright as Lt Gordon and Andy Serkis as Alfred are all excellent and bring something a little different to their roles. Less impressive though was Zoe Kravitz as cat woman. She looked fantastic in her costume but walks quite awkwardly especially in the long shots.
Talking about shots, the director's visual rendition of Gotham is one depicting social illness. It is wonderfully done. Everything about it looks dirty, decaying, grimy, cold and essentially diseased. The look works well and also extends to the bat cave where everything looks untidy. This is the Batman without the technology fitouts from Lucius Fox, so he's more of a DIY, man cave dwelling and clearly not well-polished Batman. Again, this works so well and I love the sound used when the Batman moves. This is not a silent, ninja type character. Patterson's version is that of young(ish), moody, literally clunky, slightly brutish dark knight who hasn't quite developed the psychotic streak of the comics that I tend to gravitate to. There are some hints of that extreme violence in this film (which at times got my heart thumping) and I do hope that Matt Reeves returns as director to flesh this out a bit more in the future films.
Christopher Nolan's trilogy is amazing and will be hard to beat but Reeves' version stands on its own as a perfectly good film. I would find it hard to compare this film with Nolan's epic trilogy and Tim Burton's gothic and stylised version (note: I refuse to mention the awful films by Joel Schumacher), but more to the point why would I want to make the comparison? What was missing from Nolan's and Burton's is a strong detective story which Reeves does very well.
A warning, this is a long film and covers a lot of ground. This is to me a flaw in that the film is very well directed with a great story and a good script, but I'm not sure that the final editing was quite right. Also if you are not familiar with Batman lore, you may be asking questions about characters mentioned in the film after the end credits roll. I sense that you would appreciate this more if you have read some of the seminal works by the likes of Frank Miller (Year One), and Jeph Loeb (the Long Hallowe'en).
One final thing, Nirvana's song 'something in the way' was used to great effect. Seriously enjoyed this latest depiction of a great DC character.
I really wanted to enjoy it, I sincerely did, but the truth is that Batman v Superman was a monumental disappointment. Admittedly I was expecting something along the lines of Frank Miller's seminal graphic novel "The Dark Knight Returns" and boy was I wrong.
The film was literally a series of pointless explosions, maudlin navel gazing, bizarre dream sequences and the single most annoying super villain in the form of a manic and runty Lex Luthor, embarrassingly overacted by Jesse Eisenberg. I'm surprised that the two lead superheroes didn't just put aside their so-called differences and simply joined forces to beat the crap out of that whiny little turd.
However, on the plus side, Ben Affleck did a good job of portraying the Bat. Built like a brick out-house and sporting a really menacing voice, Affleck's Batman was a dark and menacing figure. Well played. Henry Cavill is a beautiful man. Enough said, he does look quite perfect as the Kryptonian. Gal Gadot as Diana Prince/Wonderwoman is also a stunning and enigmatic character, which left me wanting to see more of her.
A measly 5 stars. This film is barely passable which keeps me wondering why DC simply can't get their superhero films right (other than Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy). Damn shame.
The film was literally a series of pointless explosions, maudlin navel gazing, bizarre dream sequences and the single most annoying super villain in the form of a manic and runty Lex Luthor, embarrassingly overacted by Jesse Eisenberg. I'm surprised that the two lead superheroes didn't just put aside their so-called differences and simply joined forces to beat the crap out of that whiny little turd.
However, on the plus side, Ben Affleck did a good job of portraying the Bat. Built like a brick out-house and sporting a really menacing voice, Affleck's Batman was a dark and menacing figure. Well played. Henry Cavill is a beautiful man. Enough said, he does look quite perfect as the Kryptonian. Gal Gadot as Diana Prince/Wonderwoman is also a stunning and enigmatic character, which left me wanting to see more of her.
A measly 5 stars. This film is barely passable which keeps me wondering why DC simply can't get their superhero films right (other than Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy). Damn shame.