Mr. H I hope your read this one, it will not only be my last, but I will say something I thought I never would: You were right. This movie was super engaging while I was watching it. I enjoyed the characters, the action, and most of the plot, but once I walked out of that theater all I could think was, "Eh." Don't get me wrong, the movie is a visual masterpiece with a very entertaining storyline, and some awesome characters and moments, but something about this film just didn't do it for me. I think my issues with it stem more from the franchise as a whole. Most of this review is going to be complaints, but my overall score on this film is going to be decently high. The reason for this is that I feel many of the early reviews on this movie are very very positive, so I am explaining why I don't quite hold it in such high regard. Don't get it twisted, this movie is great and definitely worth a watch. My main issue with these and all the other movies is one major plot hole I can never stop thinking about. This hole is: James Franco's character from the first movie, who is somehow never seen again, created the virus that wiped out humans and turned apes intelligent. While this is a great concept, when the humans started dying off from the side effects, how is it that he couldn't create a cure or vaccine. Sure I would understand if the virus had come out of nowhere, but this was something man-made. Scientists had observed and carefully measured and notated all the ingredients and chemicals that went into production of the drug creating the virus. It seems illogical that the virus could run so rampant all over the world without one of these people being able to reverse-engineer it with some kind of treatment. After all, they would have had a massive head start in development. This simple plot hole has stuck with me through all the movies, and I was really hoping at some point they would bring it full circle. Like in this movie, they are trying to obtain the contents of an old human bunker, but both apes and humans are after it. I won't spoil anything, but I was really hoping we were going to get old research from James Franco's character and find out he died while having almost developed a cure, and awesome full-circle moment. We did not get that, and to me at least it was a huge let down. This brings me to my second major gripe, the series as a whole lacks a lot of continuity. They keep time-jumping, leaving us with different characters and circumstances perfectly convenient to the plot they have chosen. For example, the apes in this movie have actually devolved, as while speaking has become commonplace, they have lost things like the ability to read, and are actually less intelligent then in Caesars' time. While I don't want to include spoilers, let's just say this was basically done out of plot convenience, and actually really frustrated me. I also wish we would get to see more of the in between. Every movie the directors get to choose how little or how much the world has deteriorated and how many humans are left or how many ape cultured has expanded. They get to pick and choose the circumstances for each new movie, so much so that they all feel their own instead of a complete storyline, as in my mind they should be. The only movies that actually feel like they kind of go together is Dawn and War, while the other two are complete outliers. I could ramble on and on, it is difficult to articulate an argument for why an objectively very good movie is only so-so in one's own opinion, but I tried to narrow it down to my two major complaints, which go hand in hand. At the end of the day my opinion is that these are all high-entertainment value movies, but they are not the masterpieces so much them out to be. They have action and moral arguments and good versus evil, but I would rank they at about the same value as a Marvel movie, and that is not intended as an insult. I would highly recommend this movie, but no, it is not going to have any sort of lasting legacy. 7.7/10
0 Comments
One thing I can tell you right away is that Miller's Girl, directed by Jade Bartlett, is worthy of its controversy. Telling the story of a definitively inappropriate story between a student and a teacher, it makes the viewer uncomfortable no matter what side of the conflict you take. While the girl definitely seeks attention, her teacher is more than willing to give it, that is until he rejects her final advances and causes her to take to the school board for revenge. Of course it isn't till this ending that you find her ulterior motive was simply to create a story worthy of her Yale admissions essay. It my opinion it seemed like a "either I get the guy or I get the story" kind of situation. A lot of the reviews on this movie are negative, and to summarize them in easy-to-understand terms would basically be, "this movie does not have the layers or depth of thought that it attempts to convince the viewers it contains through literature." To me, that seems incorrect. The movie does contain more than a few ethical questions. You question the teacher's involvement with the student, and yet you still question his deservingness of his almost inevitable firing when the student makes claims to the school about their relationship. You find yourself debating the fairness of the accusations. It may be you find it unfair for her to seek revenge when he did the morally correct thing of rejecting her advances despite previous entertainment, or you may think that their relationship didn't "far enough" to be worthy of costing a man his job and career. Either way, this movie does make you question things, and I think that qualifies as layers. It is hard to say for sure if I "liked" this movie, but I do think it accomplished its goal. It talks an uncomfortable amount about "smut" literature, and that is essentially what this movie is. You feel uncomfortable because you should feel uncomfortable. It is portraying a taboo relationship that no matter who you feel at most to blame, is definitely wrong. The movie is uncomfortable because you should hate it. It is not an examination of right vs. wrong, it is an examination of wrong vs. wrong. If you felt weirded out by what you were viewing or by taking a side in the issue, then the directors, producers, and actors/actresses did their job perfectly. While it makes for unsettling viewing, I think this movie is exactly what it wanted to be, and does that well, so that counts for a lot in my book. 7.5/10 To me, Anyone But You, directed by Will Gluck, is a return to what Rom-Coms should be. It is by no means a perfect film, but in this modern era it really felt like progress. In recent years Rom-Coms have turned it raunchy overtures filled with so much innuendo it is almost hard to watch. The films think the only idea of comedy is over-sexualizing every character and making the entire film about it. It felt like more recent movies in the genre have been either "Rom" or "Com," while what makes the classics of the genre is the delicate balance of both. This movie gets a lot closer to the early masterpieces we've seen from decades ago. It features practical comedy and a real love story. It really does make you laugh and also has you invested in their relationship, knowing they are perfect for each other no matter what comes between them. That all said, there is a lot still wrong with the movie. For one, Sydney Sweeney does not excel in this performance as much as one might think she would. She has a lot of promise as an actress, but she did not embody the character of the "well-educated college lawyer who decides she wants to live her own life." Besides from her very apparent hotness and definite ability to be a drama queen, in a good way, she doesn't bring a lot to the role. This is not to say she wasn't good, it just wasn't as much of a home run as one would think. Also, the movie has a ton of just very unnecessary nudity. I think it was meant to one of their gags, but I didn't find this particularly funny and honestly it just seemed too much. Also a weird choice because this movie could have easily been kept to a PG-13 rating if they had removed this seemingly very unnecessary feature. Glenn Powell, however, was a definite bright spot. He crushed the role of the suave, confident guy who also gets really uncomfortable and runs away from his feelings. Totally seems like the guy who is a total "fuckboy" as the movie calls it, and uses comedy and quick-wit to deflect when he really falls for someone. I think this is the start of the great future for him in the genre. Overall, this is definitely a fun watch, and highly recommendable, but overall the movie isn't revolutionary. I think it marks a turning point for me, as hopefully more Rom-Coms going forward embrace this superior template, but comparing this to titans of the genre like 10 Things I Hate About You, this doesn't even hold a candle. 6.3/10 Rise of the Planet of the Apes, directed by Rupert Wyatt, was just a fun film. It delivered a lot of interesting and cool sequences as well as tugged on your heart strings at times. Needless to say, this film definitely puts you on the side of the apes after they are shunned and mistreated inside what seems to be some kind of government facility. It presents a lot of moral questions, like the protagonist giving untested medicine to his ailing father, and even Ceasar's struggle to lead his fellow apes to independence without outright violence and killing. It is a surprising scene when Ceasar tells another gorilla to stop while he is attempting to kill a police officer fighting the apes. It is definitely a movie that tries very hard to have some substance and layers beyond just an action movie. All that said, the movie has some definite problems. For starters, the acting is just okay, mostly stemming from a poorly written screenplay. My main issue here is that the story skips A LOT of time. It basically only summarizes Ceasar's life with Will, and includes a ton of time leaps. It makes some of the interactions a little weird. Like Caroline only figuring out way later that Ceasar's crazy intelligence was given to him by a drug despite the fact that she had been around him for supposedly a number of years by then. It also seems really disingenuous how fast Will gives up getting Ceasar out of going to basic ape-prison. The movie references a lot how he basically raised Ceasar and regards him as his son, so it seems weird he didn't fight harder. It just seems a lot of the character interactions seemed forced as we don't get their full back story. Ultimately the film was really intriguing, but we also don't really get an ending. The apes escape to the forest but it is clearly only the beginning of the conflict, and it leaves the story incomplete. I think I hype it up a lot because I can tell it's a killer setup film, but taking this one by itself it is only average. 5.8/10 Let me start by saying that I loved loved loved this movie. I think it was the best in-theater movie experience I have ever had. I loved the concept and it really had me gripping my seat the whole time. That said, there are a few things you need to know before watching. One, whatever your expectations you have for it, it isn't going to fit them. This movie isn't even actually about a Civil War, not in any sense that matters. This isn't a war movie, rather a commentary through the exposures of war-time photographers and press. Secondly, the plot of this movie caters to the story they want to tell. It is a commentary on the senselessness of war and how it changes people. So no, they don't adequately explain the background of the conflict or keep viewers in the know with relevant an updated information. Again, the point is not the war but the various micro-chasms of it that we get to see. Essentially, to watch this movie you need to wipe clean the slate of your expectations and simply be open to the experience. Now, for my personal opinion: this movie was everything that Apocalypse Now wanted to be. As someone who watched that movie, and studied Coppola's reasons and goals for making it, I feel confident in that assertion. Coppola got very caught up in the surrealism element of that film, and ultimately I felt that that caused his meaning to get occasionally lost at several points in the movie. While his message was there, it was unnecessarily hard to see. Civil War, as anyone will immediately notice, is extremely grounded, and does an incredible job displaying the terrifying nature of front-line warfare and the press's place in it. The movie contains many layers and themes which to get into all of them would spoil too much of the film, but it needs to be said that the ideas of the senseless violence, obsession, misconstrued ideas of righteousness, and commentaries on the definition of right versus wrong all take center stage in the movie. I could legitimately go on and on about the movie, but I'll leave it with my strong desire that you watch this film. Its core idea is aptly described as "a love letter to journalism." In the film the main character, who is a war-time photographer, expresses her desire that Americans had learned from the photos she had taken overseas. The movie is an extension of that idea. The psychological terror of being on the front lines of conflicts is crystal clear and very felt while watching. Sometimes I almost got a feeling of pseudo shell-shock myself after the unaltered exposure to violence. The movie definitely seems like a warning and demonstration. Besides all of that, the cinematography, and especially the sound, is undisputedly amazing, and if it had come out in a better part of the year I could very easily see it getting nominated for Oscars in that category. This is only aided by the fantastic performances by Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny as protagonists, and Jesse Plemons who gave a short performance, but debatably one of the best in the film. At the end of the day I don't expect many to feel the same way, as I understand it is an easy concept for one to feel disconnected from, but to me this was a monumental film, and I would encourage everyone to watch. 9.9/10 This movie was a definite nostalgic re-watch for me. However, the first thing I could think of is how much comedy has changed over the years. This movie contains several jokes and scenes that simply would not play today and most likely would earn it bad reviews as sexist, insensitive, and racist. It occurred to me while watching this film that comedy now falls into two categories: one is movies that make their jokes around sensitive subjects and follow the new social rules of comedy, and the second is movies like Jonah Hill's "You People" that intentionally make fun of cancel culture and the social sensitivities so often entangled with popular media. Major League at its heart is simply a "feel good" comedy. At the time baseball truly was "America's Past Time," and this movie wanted to present a concept they new would play well with audiences while working in comedic elements to make it stand out and broaden its impact. The movie can play just as well with people who love baseball as people who love a laugh. From romance, to comedy, to drama, to some very rated-R content, this movie really tries to do it all. Weird to think that there might be "something for everyone" in a movie so overtly crass. It really makes me want to learn more about the era Major League was made in and what exactly the directors and producers imagined as their idea and target audience for the film. In an interesting way I do see the film as one of the kind, despite not containing any revolutionary ideas. I will definitely admit that my love for baseball and nostalgia of loving this movie as a kid allow me to overhype the film, but I still have yet to meet someone who has seen it and not enjoyed what it has to offer. 8.0/10 On The Line, directed by Romuald Boulanger, has me teetering between loving and hating it. I really really really enjoyed the concept. The caller coming into the radio show and Mel Gibson's terror slowly building as he realizes the threat coming over the air is becoming more and more credible. I was even okay with its slight devolution into a classic action thriller about halfway through. The disconnect comes of course at the end most prominently. It reminded me of Prestige where I cannot figure out if the ending is what the film needed or the bane of its existence. Similar to Prestige I am leaning more towards the ending being a cop out. Essentially the film follows a late night radio host who takes live callers. One of these callers is a man who claims to be in his house threatening the lives of his family. This begins a chase sequence taking you through the massive radio building as it is revealed the man is actually inside and they are tasked with finding him or else he will kill his family. He embarks of this journey with his new assistant producer. After finding many killed victims and ultimately wasting valuable time (He gives them 40 minutes before he blows the building). They find themselves back in the studio where it all began, and the psycho killer releases the dead man's switch to blow everyone up. Only, it doesn't happen. Becuase the whole movie was an elaborate prank to freak out the new guy, who is so distressed he exits in shock falling down a flight of stairs and hitting his head, killing him. It begins to appear that the prank had real consequences, and Mel Gibson's radio career is definitively over, only for it to be revealed that this was an elaborate way for his coworkers to turn the prank around on him, and the new guy is very much alive. This ultimately left me lost on how to feel about the movie. It is supposed to be a thriller, but we studied the art of suspense, and part of that requires stake. While I enjoyed the creative idea to turn the movie on its head, it took away the stake that is required for good suspense. It took away the movie's ability to be a thriller. This was also done in the moment because we never really see the hostage family on anyone getting tortured or killed, mostly because that would be hard to do while keeping the plausible deniability of it being a prank. But if the movie isn't a thriller I don't know what to call it. There are hardly any actions sequences, but barring the idea of it being a prank, it also makes very few attempts to be funny. So it isn't a thriller or a comedy, but it also doesn't make any attempt to be deep or thought-provoking. The only thing I could call it is an experiment in subverting expectations of the audience in that it doesn't stoop to the classic thriller-hero ending, but if that was the goal it was a poor one as it got too predictable. The lack of real suspense gave you the feeling that something was off, and there was going to be some form of twist. There was also not near enough dedication to the death scene of the assistant. and I immediately knew he wasn't actually dead, which was supposed to be the movie's REAL twist. Overall the concept was really interesting, but it felt like I was watching two different ideas clash with each other (A new and different action thriller or a defiance of the genre with a shock ending). It is hard to judge a movie that can't decide what it wants to be. 5.0/10 Damsel, directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, was in my mind a real let down from a strong opening. The first lines of the movie go, "You hear many stories where the white knight comes to save the damsel in distress, this is not one of those stories." It had me hyped up for an action-packed movie with a badass female protagonist not ready to take crap from anyone. Unfortunately it really felt the movie favored this theme of feminism over the story. It is pretty much impossible to critique a movie for being too feminist without sounding misogynistic, but I guess I have to try. To start, the plot was extremely predictable and a little trite for my taste. As my family can attest, I guessed literally everything that was going to happen at least 15 minutes before it did. Not to mention it goes unnecessary lengths to get the strong female lead point across. For example, at the end of the movie she literally genocides the entire royal family of a kingdom and then sails away with her dragon so they can get the cool final shot of her staring into the horizon after conquering all the evils in the film. Not to mention the movie focuses so heavily on her it misses out on some great opportunities to create a layered film. The trailer focuses on this guild of women in red dresses who are evidently in charge of sacrifices, and the nobility wearing cultish gold masks for a ceremony. However none of these things are ever explored in the film. Honestly is it a tough pill to swallow because in my opinion the movie threw the feminist theme in your face so much that is detracts from the actual film. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that way, so I would encourage people to watch the film. It just felt close to something I could have really enjoyed but by focusing so singularly it lost the nuance necessary for the film to be great, like exploring the Dad's impossible decision to save his daughter or his kingdom. That aside, I think Milly Bobby Brown did exceptionally well in this role, as she continues to prove she is a star of the next generation of actors and actresses. That's part of the reason her potential as definite badass female lead felt wasted on an incomplete film. As the only real standout in the cast she delivered with a great performance that in my mind saved the film in many ways. She was able to deliver some of the questionable dialogue so well it allowed me to brush over it, and she does a really good job portraying the panicky fight or flight response we all face in immediate danger. On another positive note, I love the return to medieval stories. It feels like its been forever since I've seen a movie set back in the medieval ages with dragons and castles and knights. While there was much to complain about, I have to say the movie was beautiful, with bright sweeping landscapes that lived up to the fairy tale genre. Such a strong lead actress and premise is really why I felt disappointed the movie didn't click with me. Somewhere along the line there was a disconnect I just can't describe. That's why, although I'm going to rate it low in my personal opinion, I would encourage people to watch it as I can really see someone loving it to bits. 3.9/10 The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent, directed by Tom Gormican, was a surprisingly excellent movie. I had heard it was funny, so I had decent expectations for it, but it blew me away. It features one of the most unique concepts I have ever seen a film attempt. It really won't make sense unless you watch it for yourself, but they literally write the movie about the events you are watching while you are watching them. Nick Cage and Pedro Pascal play two characters who take on writing a movie, and it isn't until about halfway through that you realize you are watching the movie they are writing. It really is an amazing concept and executed excellently for it being the first of its kind. Also, what must be said about this movie is the acting is on point. Nick Cage does quite an amazing job taking on the unique role of literally playing himself, and Pedro Pascal is excellent at maintaining ambiguity. The movie essentially points to him being the villain, and he manages to leave you guessing until the end. I have also never seen two actors be so good at appearing to be on drugs. The picture above is from a scene where they take acid, and if I didn't know better I really could have believed they took acid for the sake of the movie. I almost don't know how to judge this movie because it was more like an experimental experience. Not a lot of people have seen this one because the only place you can get it without paying for it is Starz and who the heck actually pays for a Starz subscription? Regardless, it is like 2 dollars on Prime Video and I highly recommend you watch it. It is a completely new kind of movie, and, as my friend put it, "piss your pants funny." 9.0/10 Dumb Money, directed by Craig Gillespie, is an awesome movie. I'm choosing to write about it because it really embraces some of the "little guy versus big institution" themes of early Hollywood we studied. There are a few things that jump straight out at me. First is how closely it follows to the real storyline of what happened during 2021. It even takes word-for-word from the testimonies of the Congressional hearings that had to take place over Zoom, and hence the videos became public documentation. It even shows the clips of these testimonies during the credits. It strives to tell an accurate story, including accurate number figures of how stock people bought, what the stock was worth, and even how much the people portrayed are worth today. The movie isn't perfect, but not many "true" stories put as much effort into an accurate portrayal as this one did. Now it's time to get to the things that make it not so great. The first is actually part of this "little guy fights the system" theme. It seems a little overdone in the film to me. While it is a great story about an instance where the vast majority of regular, paycheck-to-paycheck people taking down a massive Wall Street business, it does throw out the window the sheer luck it took. The truth is, while it is a motivating tale, the Wall Street people in the movie took the safe bet. Short squeezes almost never work, and GameStop investment was genuinely a meme. It is sheer dumb luck that people held their money instead of deciding to sell when the price got high. It really was a once in a lifetime instance, there is a reason Wall Street usually wins. While it is nice to see a victory for the little guy, and the event definitely changed some minds on Wall Street about the value of stock shorting, the practices shown in the movie are likely to never be effective again. Moving past themes and story-spin, the movie has some other good qualities. The acting is surprisingly great despite not having any big names other than an appearance from Pete Davidson. You really get into the characters and feel their stress of selling or holding and the potential they have to make life-changing money. The main thing this film has going for it is its relatability. I think just about anyone besides Wall Street snobs who spend millions shorting stocks would be able to relate to it. This makes it a heartwarming film about the working class getting a break and taking money from the super-rich even when they try to play dirty. This makes the movie a fun watch, and I would recommend getting to experience it. 8.3/10 |