Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City (6/10)
So I finally got around to watching this film, which means I've now seen every live-action RE film sans Afterlife. How this compares to those other films is something I'll get around to later, but as of this film in itself...
Well, I've decided to review it using a number of categories, in regards to its status as an adaptation, and how it holds up on its own.
PLOT
In terms of adaptation, this covers RE1 and RE2, combining both into a single stream of events. How well they fit together is something I'll deal with the storytelling aspect, but on the adaptation side of things, it does get the general strokes. If the be-all and end-all of RE films for you is how well they adapt the games, then WoRC is easily the best in this regard. Granted, its only real competition is the first two Anderson films, but while it takes numerous liberties, there's still a clear chain of inspiration from the games to this film, and not just in plot.
Treating the plot on its own however, it's actually fairly thin. There's two interwoven stories going on, but neither have that much 'meat' to them, and the RE2-equivalent plotline gets far more screentime than the RE1-equivalent. And as for said actual plot, there aren't that many revelations or payoffs. For instance, one revelation is that Umbrella has been using the orphanage to abduct children and send them into a lab below it for experiments (said lab being linked to the Spencer Mansion). Okay, that's neat...except it isn't a revelation, you could work that out before the title screen if you're paying attention. There's offhand references to the T-virus, G-virus, and Spencer himself, but none of these things are fleshed out. This is arguably more a worldbuilding side of things, but while I don't think the film suffers from this too much (this is unaplogetically a B movie), the plot's still thin, despite having two games and associated lore to draw from.
Also, even within the plot itself, there's things that don't quite sync. For instance, Claire is taken to be experimented on in the orphanage, but as an adult/late teen, comes back to Raccoon, and it's established that they haven't talked in five years. Furthermore, Claire is aware of Chris's football team career, either in late high school or maybe college. So either Claire ran away after being taken to the test lab, and kept in touch with a brother who refused to believe her, or was taken, fought back, and Umbrella gave up on the whole child experimentation thing until Claire buggered off on her own.
Also, Umbrella's method of destroying Raccoon is weird. It's basically a giant implosion that causes the city and surrounding area to sink into the ground. I'm still left to wonder how they plan to cover that up, and whether that method would really guarantee 100% destruction of the infected. And speaking of the infected, it's explained that the RPD hasn't been infected by the T-virus due to shots or pills they got from Umbrella. Um, okay...I can't help but wonder why Umbrella didn't extend that to the local people. What makes the police so special?
So I finally got around to watching this film, which means I've now seen every live-action RE film sans Afterlife. How this compares to those other films is something I'll get around to later, but as of this film in itself...
Well, I've decided to review it using a number of categories, in regards to its status as an adaptation, and how it holds up on its own.
PLOT
In terms of adaptation, this covers RE1 and RE2, combining both into a single stream of events. How well they fit together is something I'll deal with the storytelling aspect, but on the adaptation side of things, it does get the general strokes. If the be-all and end-all of RE films for you is how well they adapt the games, then WoRC is easily the best in this regard. Granted, its only real competition is the first two Anderson films, but while it takes numerous liberties, there's still a clear chain of inspiration from the games to this film, and not just in plot.
Treating the plot on its own however, it's actually fairly thin. There's two interwoven stories going on, but neither have that much 'meat' to them, and the RE2-equivalent plotline gets far more screentime than the RE1-equivalent. And as for said actual plot, there aren't that many revelations or payoffs. For instance, one revelation is that Umbrella has been using the orphanage to abduct children and send them into a lab below it for experiments (said lab being linked to the Spencer Mansion). Okay, that's neat...except it isn't a revelation, you could work that out before the title screen if you're paying attention. There's offhand references to the T-virus, G-virus, and Spencer himself, but none of these things are fleshed out. This is arguably more a worldbuilding side of things, but while I don't think the film suffers from this too much (this is unaplogetically a B movie), the plot's still thin, despite having two games and associated lore to draw from.
Also, even within the plot itself, there's things that don't quite sync. For instance, Claire is taken to be experimented on in the orphanage, but as an adult/late teen, comes back to Raccoon, and it's established that they haven't talked in five years. Furthermore, Claire is aware of Chris's football team career, either in late high school or maybe college. So either Claire ran away after being taken to the test lab, and kept in touch with a brother who refused to believe her, or was taken, fought back, and Umbrella gave up on the whole child experimentation thing until Claire buggered off on her own.
Also, Umbrella's method of destroying Raccoon is weird. It's basically a giant implosion that causes the city and surrounding area to sink into the ground. I'm still left to wonder how they plan to cover that up, and whether that method would really guarantee 100% destruction of the infected. And speaking of the infected, it's explained that the RPD hasn't been infected by the T-virus due to shots or pills they got from Umbrella. Um, okay...I can't help but wonder why Umbrella didn't extend that to the local people. What makes the police so special?
STORYTELLING
So this is an more interesting beast to discuss. In terms of adaptation, there isn't too much to discuss here, since games and films are different mediums, so I'm going to focus on the storytelling of the film itself.
First thing to notice is that this movie looks cheap, and I don't entirely mean that in a bad way. The conciet is that Raccoon is a dying town (town, not city - it's called "Raccoon City," but a town is what you've got here), and this is reflected in the shoddy residential buildings, to the gutted RPD (a dearth of officers, only a single helicopter, a depleted armoury), to everything in general. It's low budget, but it's a low budget movie that's depicting a low budget town, so to speak. This even extends to Umbrella itself - there's no UBCS, or the stormtrooper-esque soldiers from Apocalypse, just regular guys wearing gas masks at Raccoon's exit points. However, this doesn't extend to the CGI monsters. We get one Licker (which is okay), and the Birkin monster at the end looks atrocious. Birkin's practical effects in his first stage of transformation are okay, but after that? Bleh.
That aside, for about 80-90% of the movie, I'd say it was "good, if not great," and would have happily ranked it as the #1 RE film, and near the top of my VG film rankings overall. For the most part, things flow well - there's no wasted time, the dialogue is pretty decent, as is the action. The film has a somewhat interesting take on zombies in that the zombies in Raccoon seem to retain more of their intelligence, able to speak initially (begging to be let into the RPD), and having some self control, while the Spencer Mansion zombies are far more feral. A common motif for the infection is bleeding from the eyes, and this extends to humans, to crows, to dogs. As such, while the zombies in Raccoon are fairly anemic, the Spencer Mansion ones seem to be far more vicious. There's some really great directing here as well, as Chris fights the buggers off, where the only light source is his gun's muzzle flare, followed by him using his lighter that keeps flickering on and on. I wouldn't call WtRC a scary film, but it's certainly a tense film.
However, that still leaves that last 10-20%, where things start to lose their punch. Part of the issue is, as I mentioned, RE2 gets more screentime, so there's less incentive to care about those in the mansion. Another part is is that it feels like the filmmakers ran out of time and/or budget. This might explain why the CGI for Birkin is so terrible, but there's something just plain anemic about the directing towards the end. The film ends rather abruptly, and it's towards the end that issues with characters start to become really apparent in some cases.
So this is an more interesting beast to discuss. In terms of adaptation, there isn't too much to discuss here, since games and films are different mediums, so I'm going to focus on the storytelling of the film itself.
First thing to notice is that this movie looks cheap, and I don't entirely mean that in a bad way. The conciet is that Raccoon is a dying town (town, not city - it's called "Raccoon City," but a town is what you've got here), and this is reflected in the shoddy residential buildings, to the gutted RPD (a dearth of officers, only a single helicopter, a depleted armoury), to everything in general. It's low budget, but it's a low budget movie that's depicting a low budget town, so to speak. This even extends to Umbrella itself - there's no UBCS, or the stormtrooper-esque soldiers from Apocalypse, just regular guys wearing gas masks at Raccoon's exit points. However, this doesn't extend to the CGI monsters. We get one Licker (which is okay), and the Birkin monster at the end looks atrocious. Birkin's practical effects in his first stage of transformation are okay, but after that? Bleh.
That aside, for about 80-90% of the movie, I'd say it was "good, if not great," and would have happily ranked it as the #1 RE film, and near the top of my VG film rankings overall. For the most part, things flow well - there's no wasted time, the dialogue is pretty decent, as is the action. The film has a somewhat interesting take on zombies in that the zombies in Raccoon seem to retain more of their intelligence, able to speak initially (begging to be let into the RPD), and having some self control, while the Spencer Mansion zombies are far more feral. A common motif for the infection is bleeding from the eyes, and this extends to humans, to crows, to dogs. As such, while the zombies in Raccoon are fairly anemic, the Spencer Mansion ones seem to be far more vicious. There's some really great directing here as well, as Chris fights the buggers off, where the only light source is his gun's muzzle flare, followed by him using his lighter that keeps flickering on and on. I wouldn't call WtRC a scary film, but it's certainly a tense film.
However, that still leaves that last 10-20%, where things start to lose their punch. Part of the issue is, as I mentioned, RE2 gets more screentime, so there's less incentive to care about those in the mansion. Another part is is that it feels like the filmmakers ran out of time and/or budget. This might explain why the CGI for Birkin is so terrible, but there's something just plain anemic about the directing towards the end. The film ends rather abruptly, and it's towards the end that issues with characters start to become really apparent in some cases.
CHARACTERS
WoRC does a mostly good job with its characters, both as their own entities, and as representations of game ones. None of them are going to win any prizes for in-depth character writing (they're about on the level of the Anderson films), but unlike said Anderson films, there's no one character that's stealing the show over others, and the banter generally feels natural. Not all characters get equal screentime (as you might have guessed, Claire and Leon get far more material than Jill and Chris for instance), but overall, they're decent. Concerning key points however, going to bring up the following:
-Poor Chris. He's the closest thing the games have to a main character, but he probably gets the least screentime out of the 'big four,' and the least development. Probably his crowning glory is in the Spencer Mansion where he fights his way through hordes of zombies (see above), but he gets a 1v1 with Birkin that falls flat, because while it's established that Chris looks up to Birkin (since he had a role in the orphanage, and is implied to have sponsered Chris through academia/training), and the confrontation brings it up, it falls kind of flat.
-Jill's low-key insane, in a good way. She's wildly different from her game character, but if you like the archtype of "badass chick who's a bit crazy, but really good at what she does, and will always have your back," then you'll like Jill. For me, this version of Jill won't win any points for adaptive loyalty, but as a character in her own right, she's fun.
-Claire is in a similar position as Jill as far as "loyalty vs. execution" goes. As a character, she's fine, and benefits from being the main character of the film, and ergo, has the most development, whereas on the other, there isn't that much resemblance between this Claire and game!Claire. The one we see here is tough, no nonsense, hyper-competent, etc. However, this really doesn't sync with Claire from the games. This Claire doesn't even get a moment with Sherry in the film.
-I've seen a lot of people complain about Leon here, and I don't really get why. The Leon here is kind of clueless, naieve, very much a rookie, etc. You can argue that that's a divergence from how he is in RE2, but it's no more drastic a divergence than the other characters, and if anything, I think this captures his naievete in RE2. That, and he's really the only character that has a character arc, in that by the end, he's gone from "absolute loser" to "yeah, I just used a rocket launcher to kill Birkin, go me." Probably helps that he gets some of the best lines.
-Wesker here isn't Wesker. Like, at all. As in, you could name "Wesker" here John Doe, and it would make about as much sense. He looks completely different, acts completely different, and is a completely different person. The Wesker here is generally jovial, friendly, is being paid by a third party to retrieve the G-virus because so sick of being in Raccoon, he wants the money for a new life, yet he takes Jill with him in the Spencer Mansion, the implication being that while he knows Raccoon will be destroyed, he wants her to survive at least. And even then, his reluctance to kill at the end is what seals his fate, and he gives a genuine goodbye to his teammates, expressing remorse. By the end, he's revived (somehow...how his body was even retrieved is a mystery) and gets his trademark shades (as the revival process has made his eyes hyper-sensitive), but apart from that? Christ, they didn't even dye his hair.
So on one hand, the Wesker in the film is one of its best characters - morally ambiguous, but still a decent person driven to do things that...well, actually aren't that terrible, and understandable. But as a representation of Wesker? It's the complete opposite.
-Brian Irons: I really like this take on Irons. He isn't true to either his RE2 or RE2make personas, but what we have is a foul-mouthed, loud-mouthed, cowardly asshole. Nice.
-STARS: Grouping these together, because the remaining STARS members are redshirts. We have Vickers and Aiken on Alpha Team, and Marini and Dooley form Bravo Team, despite being patrol officers rather than any kind of SWAT-esque unit. Barry and Rebecca are nowhere to be seen, or even mentioned. Fine with redshirts - someone needs to die horribly for the sake of drama - but as far as faithfulness goes? Yeah.
-The Birkins: William Birkin is wasted here. Of what we do see of him, McDonaghuh does a great job, in that he's able to portray him as both a kind, caring figure to Sherry and the orphanage (even if it's a front), while also being downright sinister. Unfortunately, we don't see much of him. He and his family leave the house, then are absent for most of the movie where they're in a lab (somehow), and the story picks up from there. Annette is a redshirt, and Sherry...you could write Sherry out of the film and not miss anything. Seriously, after her father is killed, I don't think she has a single line, and no-one really acknowledges her presence. It doesn't even address the bond she has with Leon and Claire, as really, it's Chris and Jill who are the ones who save her.
-The Others: Lisa Trevor is neat, but is a hero rather than a villain. Ben Bertolucci doesn't get much screentime, but what he does get is good. And there's a character who cameos at the end, who's...fine, I guess?
OVERALL
Overall, I quite enjoyed this movie, but it has some significant flaws that do pile up towards the end. I think combining RE1 & 2 really hurt this film, and while I get that staying with just one could have become monotonous, things are stretched thin, and aren't stretched evenly. As its own thing, it's a fun zombie romp. As an adaptation, it's decent, but takes significant liberties and cuts a lot out. Frankly, anyone who says that games are inherently inferior to films in storytelling can be presented with this in contrast to the RE2, the RE2make, or RE1make (maybe not vanilla) and be corrected.
If we're comparing this to the Anderson films however, I'm still on the fence about that. Ranking the Anderson films here and now, for me, it goes 1>3>2>6>5 (again, haven't seen Afterlife). WtRC would fit somewhere in the 1-3-2 range. Easily better than Retribution and Final Chapter, but I'm not sure where it ranks with the first three. It's a better adaptation, sure, but a better film? Jury's still out on that.
WoRC does a mostly good job with its characters, both as their own entities, and as representations of game ones. None of them are going to win any prizes for in-depth character writing (they're about on the level of the Anderson films), but unlike said Anderson films, there's no one character that's stealing the show over others, and the banter generally feels natural. Not all characters get equal screentime (as you might have guessed, Claire and Leon get far more material than Jill and Chris for instance), but overall, they're decent. Concerning key points however, going to bring up the following:
-Poor Chris. He's the closest thing the games have to a main character, but he probably gets the least screentime out of the 'big four,' and the least development. Probably his crowning glory is in the Spencer Mansion where he fights his way through hordes of zombies (see above), but he gets a 1v1 with Birkin that falls flat, because while it's established that Chris looks up to Birkin (since he had a role in the orphanage, and is implied to have sponsered Chris through academia/training), and the confrontation brings it up, it falls kind of flat.
-Jill's low-key insane, in a good way. She's wildly different from her game character, but if you like the archtype of "badass chick who's a bit crazy, but really good at what she does, and will always have your back," then you'll like Jill. For me, this version of Jill won't win any points for adaptive loyalty, but as a character in her own right, she's fun.
-Claire is in a similar position as Jill as far as "loyalty vs. execution" goes. As a character, she's fine, and benefits from being the main character of the film, and ergo, has the most development, whereas on the other, there isn't that much resemblance between this Claire and game!Claire. The one we see here is tough, no nonsense, hyper-competent, etc. However, this really doesn't sync with Claire from the games. This Claire doesn't even get a moment with Sherry in the film.
-I've seen a lot of people complain about Leon here, and I don't really get why. The Leon here is kind of clueless, naieve, very much a rookie, etc. You can argue that that's a divergence from how he is in RE2, but it's no more drastic a divergence than the other characters, and if anything, I think this captures his naievete in RE2. That, and he's really the only character that has a character arc, in that by the end, he's gone from "absolute loser" to "yeah, I just used a rocket launcher to kill Birkin, go me." Probably helps that he gets some of the best lines.
-Wesker here isn't Wesker. Like, at all. As in, you could name "Wesker" here John Doe, and it would make about as much sense. He looks completely different, acts completely different, and is a completely different person. The Wesker here is generally jovial, friendly, is being paid by a third party to retrieve the G-virus because so sick of being in Raccoon, he wants the money for a new life, yet he takes Jill with him in the Spencer Mansion, the implication being that while he knows Raccoon will be destroyed, he wants her to survive at least. And even then, his reluctance to kill at the end is what seals his fate, and he gives a genuine goodbye to his teammates, expressing remorse. By the end, he's revived (somehow...how his body was even retrieved is a mystery) and gets his trademark shades (as the revival process has made his eyes hyper-sensitive), but apart from that? Christ, they didn't even dye his hair.
So on one hand, the Wesker in the film is one of its best characters - morally ambiguous, but still a decent person driven to do things that...well, actually aren't that terrible, and understandable. But as a representation of Wesker? It's the complete opposite.
-Brian Irons: I really like this take on Irons. He isn't true to either his RE2 or RE2make personas, but what we have is a foul-mouthed, loud-mouthed, cowardly asshole. Nice.
-STARS: Grouping these together, because the remaining STARS members are redshirts. We have Vickers and Aiken on Alpha Team, and Marini and Dooley form Bravo Team, despite being patrol officers rather than any kind of SWAT-esque unit. Barry and Rebecca are nowhere to be seen, or even mentioned. Fine with redshirts - someone needs to die horribly for the sake of drama - but as far as faithfulness goes? Yeah.
-The Birkins: William Birkin is wasted here. Of what we do see of him, McDonaghuh does a great job, in that he's able to portray him as both a kind, caring figure to Sherry and the orphanage (even if it's a front), while also being downright sinister. Unfortunately, we don't see much of him. He and his family leave the house, then are absent for most of the movie where they're in a lab (somehow), and the story picks up from there. Annette is a redshirt, and Sherry...you could write Sherry out of the film and not miss anything. Seriously, after her father is killed, I don't think she has a single line, and no-one really acknowledges her presence. It doesn't even address the bond she has with Leon and Claire, as really, it's Chris and Jill who are the ones who save her.
-The Others: Lisa Trevor is neat, but is a hero rather than a villain. Ben Bertolucci doesn't get much screentime, but what he does get is good. And there's a character who cameos at the end, who's...fine, I guess?
OVERALL
Overall, I quite enjoyed this movie, but it has some significant flaws that do pile up towards the end. I think combining RE1 & 2 really hurt this film, and while I get that staying with just one could have become monotonous, things are stretched thin, and aren't stretched evenly. As its own thing, it's a fun zombie romp. As an adaptation, it's decent, but takes significant liberties and cuts a lot out. Frankly, anyone who says that games are inherently inferior to films in storytelling can be presented with this in contrast to the RE2, the RE2make, or RE1make (maybe not vanilla) and be corrected.
If we're comparing this to the Anderson films however, I'm still on the fence about that. Ranking the Anderson films here and now, for me, it goes 1>3>2>6>5 (again, haven't seen Afterlife). WtRC would fit somewhere in the 1-3-2 range. Easily better than Retribution and Final Chapter, but I'm not sure where it ranks with the first three. It's a better adaptation, sure, but a better film? Jury's still out on that.
Nightmare Alley - 6/10
Nothing's really bad about this movie, really solid acting and great production. The story and characters just really didn't do much for me. The character Molly gets a great arch and ending scene for her character. The main protagonist gets a very neat, too neat, ending with it being super telegraphed. I thought the plot would be less standard than it is with some unique or different element since it was a Guillermo del Toro movie but it kinda is what it is and not too much more.
Death on the Nile - 7/10
Nice classic murder mystery with great production and solid acting. Nothing too great but it moves along fast enough and the characters are entertaining enough. Nothing's really going to stick with you but you'll probably enjoy the ride well enough. The best line is a character calling Poirot "the most ludicrous man I have ever seen." I liked Death on the Nile decently more than the previous Murder on the Orient Express with Kenneth Branagh that I found just OK.
Nothing's really bad about this movie, really solid acting and great production. The story and characters just really didn't do much for me. The character Molly gets a great arch and ending scene for her character. The main protagonist gets a very neat, too neat, ending with it being super telegraphed. I thought the plot would be less standard than it is with some unique or different element since it was a Guillermo del Toro movie but it kinda is what it is and not too much more.
Death on the Nile - 7/10
Nice classic murder mystery with great production and solid acting. Nothing too great but it moves along fast enough and the characters are entertaining enough. Nothing's really going to stick with you but you'll probably enjoy the ride well enough. The best line is a character calling Poirot "the most ludicrous man I have ever seen." I liked Death on the Nile decently more than the previous Murder on the Orient Express with Kenneth Branagh that I found just OK.
I've seen some bad superhero films in my time. Blade Trinity, Green Lantern, X-Men Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix and Origins: Wolverine, and all 4 Christopher Reeve Supermans and Superman Returns. Even some of the MCU rubbish.
I just finished watching The Suicide Squad.
I just finished watching The Suicide Squad.
It was Shrek. If you squint really hard during that scene, you can hear the Smash Mouth in the background.
I like both Suicide Squad movies. Even if I didn't like them, I would still take both of those over all the movies you just listed. Though I don't consider Superman I & II crappy. Fine for their time and all, but I'm obviously not a hardcore fan. Christopher Reeves is more so my parents thing.I've seen some bad superhero films in my time. Blade Trinity, Green Lantern, X-Men Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix and Origins: Wolverine, and all 4 Christopher Reeve Supermans and Superman Returns. Even some of the MCU rubbish.
I just finished watching The Suicide Squad.
Power of the Dog, 6/10
Not too crazy about this one to be honest. I'd seen the Oscar buzz around it, and can certainly understand why: it's got a great score, it looks beautiful, very good performances, well executed period piece etc. But I just couldn't really get into it. It's hard enough that the film starts at what feels like the start of a sequel to a previous movie, the film's focus is all over the place as well. Initially it's about the tension between these two rancher brothers, then it's about one of the brothers finding love for a while, then it's about the other brother's strained relationship with his brother's wife for a while, then it's a coming of age story for the son of the wife, and finally it becomes a revenge movie of all things when the son poisons Phil, which to me came right the fuck outta nowhere. I never really felt what the overall throughline or point was meant to be. Initially it seems like it's just a bunch of vignettes about these people's lives, chapter headings and all. But about halfway through that's ditched as well. Which admittedly gave the film more focus and I actually became invested in what was going on, but it felt weird nonetheless. I'm not against a loose structure in a film, but this felt more like a series of setups that didn't really pay off.
It's pretty slow moving as well, with multiple scenes where I felt my thoughts were wandering elsewhere. Having just finished it like 10 minutes ago I find myself wondering: what was all that for? What was it building to? It feels like a bunch of ingredients that someone started making a dish with, then gave up and started making another dish, then another etc. I have to say this though: I genuinely didn't pick up on the fact that Phil was homosexual until the scene where he's making the rope with Peter. I actually went "oooooooh, so that's why he was that way and did x and y". It's incredibly subtly hinted at throughout the movie, but once it's made more clear it all adds up. I don't remember the last time a film gave me a similar experience so props for that. And it's not like it's some Shyamalan-esque twist that makes you rethink the entire movie either, it's just well executed filmmaking.
Not too crazy about this one to be honest. I'd seen the Oscar buzz around it, and can certainly understand why: it's got a great score, it looks beautiful, very good performances, well executed period piece etc. But I just couldn't really get into it. It's hard enough that the film starts at what feels like the start of a sequel to a previous movie, the film's focus is all over the place as well. Initially it's about the tension between these two rancher brothers, then it's about one of the brothers finding love for a while, then it's about the other brother's strained relationship with his brother's wife for a while, then it's a coming of age story for the son of the wife, and finally it becomes a revenge movie of all things when the son poisons Phil, which to me came right the fuck outta nowhere. I never really felt what the overall throughline or point was meant to be. Initially it seems like it's just a bunch of vignettes about these people's lives, chapter headings and all. But about halfway through that's ditched as well. Which admittedly gave the film more focus and I actually became invested in what was going on, but it felt weird nonetheless. I'm not against a loose structure in a film, but this felt more like a series of setups that didn't really pay off.
It's pretty slow moving as well, with multiple scenes where I felt my thoughts were wandering elsewhere. Having just finished it like 10 minutes ago I find myself wondering: what was all that for? What was it building to? It feels like a bunch of ingredients that someone started making a dish with, then gave up and started making another dish, then another etc. I have to say this though: I genuinely didn't pick up on the fact that Phil was homosexual until the scene where he's making the rope with Peter. I actually went "oooooooh, so that's why he was that way and did x and y". It's incredibly subtly hinted at throughout the movie, but once it's made more clear it all adds up. I don't remember the last time a film gave me a similar experience so props for that. And it's not like it's some Shyamalan-esque twist that makes you rethink the entire movie either, it's just well executed filmmaking.
Agreed, this film very much exists for itself, and doesn't make significant strides to be cohesive. Not that it's incohesive, it just throws a lot at you, then settles on the tale it wants to be near the end. I guess this could be a story that happened, but it hints at a lot of stories that don't really go anywhere necessary for the film's conclusion. I'll give it this: it did a great job of hiding the son's motives despite them should having been obvious from the outset.
Also Cumberbatch really was convincing as a cowboy. I'm almost getting sick at how well British actors are at pulling off non-British characters. American actors try it all the time, and all we hear is how bad their accents are, then a British actor gets nominated for an Oscar, and we're all like "wait, they're British?!?" during their acceptance speeches.
DamnI've seen some bad superhero films in my time. Blade Trinity, Green Lantern, X-Men Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix and Origins: Wolverine, and all 4 Christopher Reeve Supermans and Superman Returns. Even some of the MCU rubbish.
I just finished watching The Suicide Squad.
So better or worse than Suicide Squad?
Moonfall - 8/10
Really good bad movie so-to-speak. The movie has quite a bit of fun with gravity since the moon gets closer and closer to earth. It's kinda your standard Roland Emmerich disaster type movie but this one is on steroids.
Really good bad movie so-to-speak. The movie has quite a bit of fun with gravity since the moon gets closer and closer to earth. It's kinda your standard Roland Emmerich disaster type movie but this one is on steroids.
Definitely agreed there.
At the scene where he was dissecting the rabbit his mother was in the previous scene cradling in her arms gave hardcore serial killer vibes. I guess I chalked it up to "well, it's olden times and there's not a lot of ways he can study medicine up in the middle of nowhere"... while completely forgetting that the movie takes place in the 1920s. Smit-McPhee plays it really well, seeming like this meek, coddled fragile boy who's supposed to break free from his mother's influence. When in fact he's a stone cold killer merely getting closer to his prey.
Did you watch Toy Story 2, where one of the most famous scenes in it is a heart-wrenching montage of abandonment? Or the character of Prospector Pete, whose entire character is based around being past one's prime and becoming unwanted? I haven't seen The Incredibles since I was a kid, but I see that being described as one of the darkest Pixar films all the time.
Exactly that. The film would have him come off as a hero when the audience is leaning back in a reticent "wait a minute... that kid's a psychopath" vibe. Like a tale about Hannibal Lector's childhood where we learn just where the calculated, precise and (honestly) brilliant nature of his psychopathy stemmed from. I mean, after we learn about Cumberbatch's homosexual tendencies, and he knows the son knows, he became almost sympathetic and genuine, and I thought it was going to be a coming of age/change of heart tale, and everyone would live happily ever after. It very much was not that. I think that's why, as much as I can't herald it as a significantly "great" movie as all the Oscar nominations would lead one to believe, it definitely sticks with you in some disturbing and troubling ways, and for that alone isn't easily dismissed.
The Worst Person in the World
Joachim Trier directed a critical darling in which Julie, a 30-year-old pretty woman searching for herself, aimlessly lives her life in Oslo and can't help but compare herself to others with goals and aspirations. I tricked myself going to see this, because it's tagged as a "romantic black comedy-drama", while it's actually a romantic drama that turns really sad towards the end. There is some humor but it's really light in my opinion, and calling the film a black comedy is a mistake. Anyway, there is plenty of cleverness in the script that certainly deserves praise. Flashbacks are used in a really smart way that you don't even see coming, and most of all the viewer gets to riddle themselves who really is the worst person in the world. Julie is awarded almost infinite patience and opportunity in modern day Norway, doing little to nothing with it is still doing nothing wrong.
7/10
Joachim Trier directed a critical darling in which Julie, a 30-year-old pretty woman searching for herself, aimlessly lives her life in Oslo and can't help but compare herself to others with goals and aspirations. I tricked myself going to see this, because it's tagged as a "romantic black comedy-drama", while it's actually a romantic drama that turns really sad towards the end. There is some humor but it's really light in my opinion, and calling the film a black comedy is a mistake. Anyway, there is plenty of cleverness in the script that certainly deserves praise. Flashbacks are used in a really smart way that you don't even see coming, and most of all the viewer gets to riddle themselves who really is the worst person in the world. Julie is awarded almost infinite patience and opportunity in modern day Norway, doing little to nothing with it is still doing nothing wrong.
7/10
Completely irrelevant to your post and this film (which I've not seen,) but every time I see the phrase "the worst person in the world," I am reminded of my absolute favorite scene from Parks & Recreation. Jean Ralphio is a genius "insufferable, obnoxious asshole" character, and Ben Schwartz kills it every time he's on screen.
In the TV Show House of Lies, his character (which is basically Jean Ralphio) tells a chick that her breasts are like 9/11... Never forget.
Neither of those movies made me cry at all. Toy Story 2 has some characters abandoned by someone we don't know and don't care about and then they get accepted by Andy and find a nice happy home. Toy Story 3 has all the characters we've known for 3 movies being abandoned by Andy who is growing up and doesn't need them anymore and are going to new children and a future of uncertainty.
Incredibles I didn't find dark at all. It was a superhero movie with slight Randian themes.
The Princess and the Pilot. I give it a 5/10.
Cinematography is excellent, artwork is beautiful, concept has potential, execution is a lame duck.
It just doesn't develop things enough. The war isn't developed enough, the persecution isn't developed enough, the airships aren't developed enough, the class problems aren't developed enough, and worst of all, the characters aren't developed enough. The thing is, there's nothing here that insults me or anything, I wouldn't say it's a bad movie, it's like soda that's been opened and then left in the fridge overnight, flat. Quiet moments and atmosphere building are important things that too many movies don't do enough of but this movie is an example of going too far in the opposite direction, they needed to increase the amount of dialogue by 3 and rewrite the ending to something that isn't so lame and boring.
Cinematography is excellent, artwork is beautiful, concept has potential, execution is a lame duck.
It just doesn't develop things enough. The war isn't developed enough, the persecution isn't developed enough, the airships aren't developed enough, the class problems aren't developed enough, and worst of all, the characters aren't developed enough. The thing is, there's nothing here that insults me or anything, I wouldn't say it's a bad movie, it's like soda that's been opened and then left in the fridge overnight, flat. Quiet moments and atmosphere building are important things that too many movies don't do enough of but this movie is an example of going too far in the opposite direction, they needed to increase the amount of dialogue by 3 and rewrite the ending to something that isn't so lame and boring.