Change Your Image
sean_pak215
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Andrey Rublyov (1966)
Epic, engrossing, enigmatic
First of all, let's clear something up now: THE version of this film to watch is the original 205-minute cut. This is one instance when you can't trust the director's own words, and you must instead go with your gut feeling, especially comparing it with the director's other works. Tarkovsky may have gone on record as "preferring" the shorter version, but 1) he was still under Soviet support when he made that statement and it would've been politically damaging if he endorsed an uncensored version, and 2) the uncut Andrei Rublev simply feels much more like a Tarkovsky movie. Watch Solaris, Stalker and Sacrifice, then compare the two versions of Andrei Rublev. It becomes very apparent that the 205 minute cut is a true Tarkovsky film, with its meditative pace, long takes, and unflinching view of the world. Tarkovsky, if he had it his way, would never have cut out the jester's arse; he would never have edited out nudity, violence, even the infamous animal cruelty. He wouldn't have broken up the ebb and flow of his long takes. The worst offense of the shorter version is that, in many instances, scenes which were originally one unbroken shot is hacked by editing. The result is that the pacing might seem smoother and swifter, but now it doesn't have that style and feel of a Tarkovsky movie. Because of this contrast, the uncut version seems to contain significantly more long takes, plus a darker perspective, and it makes all the difference. This adds to the cumulative effect and power of the uncut version.
Now on to the film itself: in hindsight, this is one of the most ambitious second features in the history of cinema. Ivan's Childhood already had impressive scope for a debut, but a young Tarkovsky followed it up with an abstract, philosophical biopic which created an epic, immersive, gritty depiction of 15th century Russia. Every time I watch this, I'm struck by just how BIG the movie feels, like it easily holds its own against the scope of other epics such as Lawrence of Arabie or The English Patient. Yet it's also uncompromisingly experimental, weird, challenging. We must remember, this period is considered the "Golden Age" of Russian cinema, and part of that has to do with the big studios' willingness to throw money at artistic, personal projects such as this.
Not much is known of Rublev's real life, so Tarkovsky didn't even attempt to make a factual, standard biopic. Instead he paints a fictional tableau of medieval Russia and places a hypothetical Andrei Rublev character within it. Using this interesting foundation, Tarkovsky paints his own picture of Russian society, politics, existentialism, humanism, and the philosophies of art and creativity. Tarkovsky ponders on the meaning and role of an artist in the face of the bleakness of the real world and the darkness of humanity. He does all this with arresting visuals, grand battle scenes, poetic cinematography, and a very unorthodox script. With one massive sophomore feature, Tarkovsky already proved himself a genius with an incredibly unique perspective and style.
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
A strong finale to an awesome trilogy
Note: I am rating and reviewing the unaltered version, which goes for the entire OT. I haven't seen any of the "Special Editions" since the 20th anniversary theatrical re-releases, and I consider only the unaltered forms as THE Original Trilogy.
After George Lucas made a splash with the first Star Wars, he and the studio were able to hire better writers, directors and crew members for future installments. A New Hope has the clunkiest dialogue and most simplistic storyline of the bunch, as well as the cheapest effects. The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi had bigger budgets, slicker filmmaking and more polished scripts. Each one expanded on the universe that Lucas created in magnificent ways (especially when we compare them now to the later installments).
What strikes me each new time I see this is the deliberate pacing. A New Hope took its time, we all know that, but then it had to. It was our introduction to the characters and the lore, and it couldn't be rushed. The Empire Strikes Back was faster paced, except for the scenes with Yoda on Dagobah. Here, all the characters are established, yet the first half is very patient. Compare this to the Sequel Trilogy that seems so afraid to bore anyone under 13. And I love the deliberate way this movie begins. A large chunk of time is devoted to the rescue of Han Solo from Jabba's palace. Each character comes into the story gradually, and I especially love the way Luke is introduced. It creates a great, grimy atmosphere that the movie sustains for most of its runtime. That's one thing that the original trilogy really pulls off, and the later films aren't as successful at: the atmosphere. Each film in the OT has its own tone, full of atmosphere and grit. The great beginning at Jabba's palace perfectly establishes the right tone here, and even when the action starts heating up, and even when the cute Ewoks come into the picture, the movie never relinquishes that gritty atmosphere. The Ewoks may be cute, but they're intelligent and tough, and they fight in one of the biggest land battles in the franchise. And the battles of the last third are interspersed with Luke's dark, slower scenes in Palpatine's Throne Room.
It's not a masterpiece or as tightly constructed as Episodes 4 and 5. A New Hope had a clunky script, but fortunately the plot was straightforward enough where it was still okay. Empire Strikes Back had an excellent script, and if there were plot holes and lapses in logic, I didn't really notice. Here, you have some cheap conveniences that hold the movie back, as if the writers knew how to build up an epic finale, but then didn't quite know how to stick the landing at the end. One of the most glaring is how Han's team on Endor finally takes out the shield generator. I don't want to spoil it, but it seemed too easy, and unrealistic. An enemy with any brains at all wouldn't have acted that way. Another clunky scene is when Vader approaches Palpatine about sensing Luke on Endor. First, Palpatine seems surprised and admits he didn't sense Luke, but right after that he somehow has already "foreseen" that Luke will approach Vader. Huh? The writers tried so hard to move the story forward in these scenes, and sacrificed some logic. Overall, I still believe the script here is less clunky than A New Hope, and at most, contains just as many holes and conveniences, but as I said, it seemed more excusable in Ep 4 because the story was simpler. Here, the writers try for a much more complicated plot, and in the second half, they were pressured to tie up the entire trilogy in a neat way. So the various coincidences and logic gaffes stood out a bit more as the grand finale seemed overly rushed.
But that's close to nitpicking, because I'll be honest: I grew up with this movie, and have seen it, well, I don't know how many times now. It's endlessly rewatchable, as is the OT as a whole, and is a thrilling and rewarding conclusion to the first trilogy. So even if the script isn't perfect, or as tight as Empire Strikes Back, the writers and director definitely did something right, because the flaws don't fully dampen my enjoyment, or prevent this from being the classic it is.
Boku dake ga inai machi (2016)
Wonderfully crafted and engaging mystery
This is just a beautifully made series, a lot of love went into this. Firstly, you have a great opening song. Actually, it's an older 2004 song by the excellent Japanese rock band Asian Kung-Fu Generation, titled "Re:Re." Despite the name and how perfectly the lyrics connect to the themes of the story, it actually wasn't written for the show, believe it or not. It's a great song in its own right, and make sure you look up the full version on Spotify (it's actually the version that's on the 2016 re-recording of their album Sol-Fa, not the 2004 original). The credits sequence severely truncates the song, and the full track is awesome.
Then you have the animation, which goes heavily for realism yet still does things only the anime format could accomplish effectively. The world the animators build of both 2006 and 1988 Japan is detailed and spot-on.
The storyline itself isn't perfect, but it's fully engaging and, for the most part, well-paced through the entire series. For the most part. The plot kind of fizzes out a bit in the last 3 episodes, feeling more rushed, and bringing up nagging questions in my mind (such as why exactly the protagonist is still alive). I thought some of the writing could have been stronger towards the end, and that's mainly why I only give this an 8. It's not one of the greatest anime series I've ever seen, but it's still excellent. I've heard that the original manga is more detailed in the latter parts of the story, so I'm not sure why this adaptation rushed things when it had a whole series to tell the story. Were the directors required to stay within 12 episodes or something?
Here you have a body-swap/alternate timeline/murder mystery combo, and the first moments of Episode 1 drop you straight into the story without wasting a moment. There were some things about the main character Satoru's Revival ability that remained unclear to me, and seemed inconsistent, but overall the time shifts to and from 2006 and 1988 were done well and kept things interesting. The characters were memorable, and the writing was very strong throughout, with a well-done voiceover, good mystery, and believable interactions. Although in hindsight there were a bunch of clues I should have noticed, I admit that the big twist actually got me.
C'eravamo tanto amati (1974)
Effortless and epic Italian comedy
Now that this thing has been beautifully restored with a blu-ray release, hopefully it finds more of an audience. It certainly deserves it. I caught a screening of the 2016 restoration and just from a visual perspective it was ravishing and magnificently well-crafted. I went into it cold, not knowing one iota about the plot and only buying a ticket due to its status among film buffs. There is one thing I need to get out of the way now: this is not a movie you only watch once and expect to fully understand or unravel. There is a whole lot going on here. The plot itself is like a more baroque, enigmatic and psychological version of Jules et Jim, as well as a journey through the adult life of three friends in post-war Italy. But that's only the skeleton of a very complex whole, and by the end the viewer has pondered love, social status, politics, war, art and philosophy, among other things. And yet the whole work is just so light on its feet, like a bird waltzing through. The pacing is masterful, moving the story and images along relentlessly but still finding the space it needs to get under your skin before you really know where it's headed or what it's truly saying (brilliantly, those aspects only gradually become apparent as the film glides along). Characters weave in and out and you find that, somehow, you care about all of them, and that they all have their flaws and strengths like actual people. The camerawork is immaculate and well-thought out on a technical level but, sans perhaps a few shots, never pretentious, whatever that word may mean to you. Homages to past classics are abundant, as this is as much a movie about cinema itself as it is a drama and comedy. Speaking of which, this movie is simply hilarious. Above, I may have seemed to be describing a chore to sit through, some kind of grand drama, but rest assured this is anything but. Ettore Scola's most important touch of brilliance is the off-kilter, irreverent tone he employs for much of the movie, never quite full romance, or comedy, or political film, or art treatise, or psychological drama, but operating in a weirdly effective middle land between all of those things. The humor comes unexpectedly but is always sharp when it does, and the whole thing is just so entertaining to watch. There were lines and even whole scenes that made me laugh so hard I nearly spilled my coffee. Stefania Sandrelli was very easy on the eyes so that helped as well.
The Bourne Legacy (2012)
Does the Bourne name proud
Now that the dust has settled and the fifth Bourne film (and Damon's return to the role) has come and gone, and after having re-watched this after seeing Jason Bourne (2016), I can safely say that this is still the fourth best Bourne flick, and a very solid action movie in its own right.
The main reason this is stronger than the fifth one: Tony Gilroy.
He wrote the original film trilogy. He understands the universe of the films, he understands this type of character. He did NOT write Jason Bourne (2016), which was the first and only one in the franchise that wasn't penned by him, and it showed. That movie was much less intelligent and gripping than Bourne 1-3, and this one.
This isn't perfect or as great as the first three. The main problem is that the plot for this installment feels slight. This is literally a throwaway concept (Renner's character and the organization he is a part of are basically being cast under the rug here by the evil US government, and that's the angle). Renner is essentially just reacting to the events in the previous films. It's not quite a sequel because it's actually happening concurrently with the trilogy. Which is a unique touch, I guess, but it destroys any true sense of importance into the proceedings, especially since you hear nothing about the events of Legacy in Jason Bourne (2016). So while this is a fun, well-made film, it inevitably feels inconsequential when you take the entire series into account.
I thought the lack of Damon would be a weakness but it's actually not; Renner is a solid actor, even quite excellent in some roles, and even if he doesn't have the sheer charisma/star power of Damon, he brings his own sense of tough smarts and cool wit to the film, and he does a really good job of communicating the same sense of constantly-three-steps-ahead that Bourne himself did. Renner has that same natural air of intelligence as Damon, but in a grittier fashion, and Tony Gilroy knows how to utilize it.
Rachel Weisz doesn't have a whole lot to do but she has her plucky moments and at least plays a heroine with some intelligence, and who isn't simply a love interest for the protagonist. I actually think Gilroy handled that part well.
Here's hoping that if they make another Bourne installment, Tony Gilroy comes back as the writer. And I would gladly see Renner continue this role, but it probably will never happen.
Blackhat (2015)
Sporadically fascinating, but ultimately unsuccessful
This is a very, very difficult film to rate. On a surface level, the acting and script are pretty lousy and the characters thin. On a deeper level, as well as a technical one, this is an immaculately made and thematically rich film, and Mann is attempting some sort of post-post-modern techno-existential tone poem where performances and plot are given markedly less priority. It's aggressively a film of moments, those being every specific moment you're watching it. It's a deeply sensual work. But the more you actually think about the story and how the scenes are connecting together, it sort of falls apart. I appreciate what Mann is trying to do here but it still doesn't change the fact that the dialogue and acting are often laugh-worthy and the story/thriller elements don't seem to make a lick of sense. I'll probably need to revisit this a few more times, but after one viewing, it left me with a bad aftertaste. I will say that the movie picks up slightly in the last third or so. After a certain "wake-up" scene containing an explosion (you'll know when you get to it), things get more engaging. But by then it's a bit too late.
Baraka (1992)
An extremely dark work of social philosophy
For a film with no dialogue or plot, which many people deride as a series of postcards, this is in fact one of the most profound, philosophical, cynical, pessimistic, misanthropic works in the entire history of cinema. Every single image here comes fully loaded, every frame is an essay. Whole books can and should be written to analyze this film. It never fails to leave me completely depressed in the best possible way.
Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)
One of the MCU's weaker efforts
Overrated, and I've enjoyed most of the recent MCU films. This one, however, was too uneven in pacing, too unimaginative in filmmaking, and too flat in humor besides admittedly a few amusing moments. Edgar Wright would've injected so much more life, timing, cinematic craft and clever writing in these Ant-Man flicks.
Annihilation (2018)
Decent, but a step back from Ex Machina
For all the talk about how challenging this may be for mainstream audiences and how it was almost hacked by Paramount and flushed into release sans fanfare, I actually felt like this film was written and filmed more to appeal to a mass audience than Ex Machina. The latter felt more like Garland working out his personal thematic obsessions in his unique way without consideration for traditional forms of entertainment. This film, on the other hand, tried to be more ambitiously trippy but the story asked fewer philosophical questions, and contained a more expository script. Ex Machina, by contrast, told a more enigmatic story which left thoughts and questions of more substance in my mind after the credits. Even the genre trappings here (survival horror) felt like a concession to the mainstream, whereas Ex Machina was harder to categorize. The much-discussed final 20 minutes were also a little too straightforward for me, as visually spectacular and "trippy" as they were. But it wasn't the profound enigma that a Kubrick or a Tarkovsky could muster, or even a Jim Jarmusch, Jonathan Glazer or Shane Carruth if we're talking contemporaries. The climax here tried too hard to be some kind of philosophically profound statement, but that's the thing: it felt forced.
Complaints aside, I still thought it was one of the stronger and more ambitious mainstream Hollywood science fiction films of recent years, the key word being "mainstream." For that alone it deserves some appreciation. The camerawork, set design, performances, soundtrack and overall direction were of high caliber, and I was entertained the whole time. But it still just struck me as a Hollywood affair, which left me with a slight air of disappointment since Garland's previous directorial effort was much more enigmatic and underground-feeling. Wanted to love this but only liked it.
All Is Lost (2013)
Overlooked gem
An underrated film here and, even though the reviews were strong upon initial release, kind of critically forgotten too. It wasn't big during the Oscars. Which is a shame, because this is one of my favorite films from 2013, and one of my favorite Redford performances. Perhaps I just have a thing for films with spare dialogue, and if there's almost no dialogue then even better (WALL·E is my favorite Pixar film, and Eraserhead and the works of Edward Yang are some of my favorites of all time). But other things this film has going for it are its attention to detail and its beautiful score. The great thing is that the protagonist isn't helpless. On the contrary, he's actually a very experienced seaman. So all the fun is watching Redford's character trying to put all his knowledge to the test to try to survive. It's a very intelligent, plucky film. Why it's sort of forgotten now I don't know.
The Mitchells vs the Machines (2021)
Great animation and sharp satire, but ultimately a bit underwhelming
I really wanted to like this more than I did. In some ways, this was admirably witty, meaningful and satirical, poking daggers at modern society's dependency on technology. This played like a kid-friendly version of Black Mirror. On a purely technical level, this was awesome, filled with beautiful, vibrant, sometimes surreal, animation. But why do we keep giving passes to family movies where everything works out too perfectly, action scenes end too neatly, and things become so predictable by the end? I mean, maybe I've watched too much Japanese animation, but the best anime clearly shows that you can make kid-friendly movies and series, and still be intelligent, unpredictable and unafraid to slow the pace down. But movies like this and the How To Train Your Dragon series are so frenetic and tidy. It's like the scripts have no breathing room at all, or any sense of real danger.
This is still very much worth seeing though. As I said, the animation is stunning. The humor is also strong, and I found myself actually laughing at a lot of the jokes, which isn't normally the case even with other highly-touted cartoons. The satire on technology was spot-on, and there were a ton of amusing references to past science fiction classics (ie. The main villain, a smartphone, was named PAL, and most young audience members wouldn't even know 2001: A Space Odyssey).
As is par for the course when it comes to childrens' movies, you also have some good lessons about family. However, making the Mitchells quirky outcasts isn't as original as the writers seem to think. So many family movies recently have quirky, "different" main characters. Ever since The Incredibles and maybe even earlier, it's been a thing. But for young audiences and families, the themes and messages here are admirable and effective.
The action sequences were very well-presented and kinetic, but I started to get tired of the typical "the baddies are winning, no the heroes are winning, no the baddies are winning, oh the heroes won at the last minute" structure, where luck and coincidences began to stack up like the floating boxes that the humans were trapped in. And there's no need to make things so simplistic for the kids. As I said, plenty of cartoons, especially from other countries such as Japan, are much more natural in how they handle action sequences and overcoming adversity. Here, the ups and downs of the battles felt too forced, and the victory of the Mitchells at the climax felt too inevitable.
So, definitely things about this I appreciated, and for a family movie it's very solid. But more discerning viewers may not be as satisfied.
Alphaville: Une étrange aventure de Lemmy Caution (1965)
Uneven Godard, but still fascinating
Doesn't completely hang together and the various Godard-isms clash with the hard-boiled dystopian sci-fi plot. Some of the pacing and writing is uneven whereas in works such as Week-end and Pierrot Le Fou the director's tangents seem to flow better with the material. However, the atmosphere of this film is simply spectacular. I love how Godard uses his present day post-war settings and noir-ish black & white cinematography and lighting to create this fascinating urban wasteland of the "future." I put that in quotes because, in a brilliant touch, Godard plays with time and makes it ambiguous. The second World War is talked about like it was a recent event and there are various props and locations that purposefully harken to the past (ruins, hanging lightbulbs, and the detective himself in the center of it all). The dialogue on the other hand is pure science fiction with all the talk of zones and emotion suppression and supercomputers. The result is an atmosphere impossible to pin down and infinitely interesting. The friend I rewatched this with was blown away at how much it reminded him of Blade Runner, which is an apt comparison because of the gritty, dystopian, noir vision. However, this film is arguably more impressive for not just pre-dating that Ridley Scott classic, but also the Philip K. Dick novel it was based on. Talk about ahead of its time. I just wish the quality of the movie itself matched the visuals, style and atmosphere, then this really would've changed the world.
9 Songs (2004)
Poorly made, and even the sex is boring.
Zero plot, which would be completely fine if the film were innovative, experimental, aesthetically pleasing, and the leads had chemistry. But it's also simply dull, which a film about sex and music should never be. A star for some decent music, and another star because it managed to turn me on once (I'm being very generous there).
If I were to film this, I'd make these improvements:
- first, ditch the damn shaky cam
- don't cut to any sex in the first few minutes. Instead build up to the intercourse.
- speaking of build up, actually establish how they met, establish some chemistry, even in a visual, subtle way. The film starts with BRMC concert footage where you barely glimpse the leads in the audience, then straight to them boinking in the next scene. Instead spend that first concert by visually showing us the steps of their meeting.
- record a whole song by each band, not just parts of songs. Use that time to really make artful concert segments, unique to each song and artist. And show something interesting actually happening with the characters during each one.
- shoot and light and pace the sex scenes in artful, meaningful ways. As they are in the film, it's basically uninteresting, badly lit shakycam porn.
- for the love of God, actually find two leads who are attractive and who can act. And give them a better script.
This guy also made the immensely fun, meta, freewheeling Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story??
Beoning (2018)
A slow, yet fiery, burn
This is so brilliantly done. The writing by acclaimed novelist-turned-screenwriter-director Lee Chang-dong is to die for. Two former schoolmates from the poor countryside who are struggling to make it in the difficult, competitive maze of urban Korea run into each other by chance. One is a struggling, aspiring writer with no pretenses who may be a semi-autobiographical character for the filmmaker, the other an attractive, free-spirited but lonely and emotionally vulnerable young woman with a talent for dancing. She recognizes him in the midst of her profound loneliness, feels a mixture of attraction and desperation and spontaneity, and gets him into bed. He, just as lonely, in the midst of numbing familial emotional and legal problems, gets entirely too attached. From there, the enigmatic nightmare begins. She goes off to Africa for a short time and asks the poor farmer/writer to watch her cat in the city. A cat which may or may not exist. When she returns from Kenya, she introduces a Korean friend she met there under extreme circumstances, a friend she may or may not be sleeping with. This friend may or may not be a psychopath, a mysterious Gatsby who lives a wealthy life without seemingly working, who may or may not indulge in a disturbing hobby (or two, or three). Outwardly he's charming but constantly bored, a mixture of shallow and deep, and as pretentious as the young farmer-writer isn't. The writer loves Faulkner because he sees himself in the pages; the strange Korean Gatsby reads Faulkner out of surface "interest," and possibly to impress a woman. He is "interested," he says, in people like the writer and the lonely girl, he is "interested" in their lives, their plight, but interest is far from compassion or understanding, of course. The writer thinks he sees through him.
But all of that summarization is only half the story here, if that. The whole film takes on a hazy magical-realist style that exudes the translucent atmosphere of author Haruki Murakami, who wrote the story this is loosely based on. Truth and imagination become constantly blurred in this tumultuous emotional forest, and the second half of the movie feels like a dreamy, almost surreal take on a Hitchcock mystery. I've watched this movie three times and come to different conclusions after each viewing. It's one of those great works of art where the observer's interpretation depends as much on them as the work they're observing. All I know for sure is that after three views, this is one of my favorite movies of all time, something I never say lightly. Chang-dong cements himself as my favorite Korean filmmaker, and one of my favorite writer-directors in the industry now, up there with Paul Thomas Anderson and the Coens, among a select few others.
Spectre (2015)
Solid modern Bond film. Great action and slick filmmaking; flimsy plot
Within the tier of Craig's 007 installments, this is a strong #3 close behind Skyfall for me. Far better than Quantum of Solace, more fun and with better action than Skyfall, but not as tightly written or gritty. None of Craig's outings has come close to reaching the power or originality of Casino Royale, which is still easily #1 in the Craig era. But keep in mind that this is also a very different, much more experienced version of Bond. In Royale and on through Skyfall, Craig's 007 was still finding his way and improving as an agent. Now, he's ruthlessly efficient. He can shoot his way out of an ambush with one rifle and a girl at his side. He can battle a helicopter with a gun, and win. He can keep his cool while being chased by a sinister assassin across several countries AND while protecting said Bond girl. Even the scene where he's being tortured in the lair of the big baddie, you never get the sense that he's in any actual danger. In past Craig outings, he seemed vulnerable to some extent. Not here. This is finally the Craig version firing on all cylinders, in peak conditioning and decision making.
The results are entertaining and action-packed, and more light-hearted and purely fun than Skyfall, with the same slick filmmaking that Sam Mendes has brought to the franchise since the last installment. The action scenes here are incredible, even if sometimes ridiculous in typical Bond fashion (whereas the past few installments tried to be a little more consistently down-to-earth). Here, you have a brawl in an out-of-control helicopter over a crowded festival in Mexico, and an airplane piloted by Bond chasing an entourage of cars in the snow and taking them all out, among other things. All of it remains extremely watchable because Mendes and his technical crew worked their hearts out to present it all clearly and dynamically (compare this to, say, the action sequences in Quantum of Solace with their annoying shakycam and lousy editing).
Although he is underutilized overall, Christoph Waltz still improves this with his presence, moreso in my opinion than Javier Bardem in Skyfall. While Waltz's Blofeld doesn't have very many scenes or lines, especially in the first half, his presence is felt throughout the whole movie because of the way Mendes and his writers present him. There's a ton of mystique and enigma surrounding Blofeld here, and Mendes shoots Waltz mostly in shadows and keeps his face hidden for the majority of the runtime. I thought they did a good job with this aspect, so much so that once Waltz fully comes into the story, showing his face and making speeches, the weaknesses of the writing and a rushed finale make his overall performance underwhelming. Like, this all-powerful, mysterious supervillain was built up so much during the first two-thirds, yet he seemed comparatively weak in the final third, when he started doing the usual supervillain things such as walking his victims around while explaining his evil plans, and giving Bond the opportunity to escape.
Which leads me to the main thing that holds this back: the script. Okay yeah, we don't go to 007 movies for their writing. We know that the "plots" in Bond flicks, such as they are, function mainly as thin strings attaching the various action scenes together. But we've had some strong Bond scripts, relatively speaking. From Russia With Love, Casino Royale, Skyfall, even Goldfinger, Thunderball and The Spy Who Loved Me, while never in any fear of getting Best Screenplay nominations, still had decent stories that didn't have too many annoying coincidences and questions. I didn't mind what plot holes there were. I think what makes it more of a flaw for Spectre is that Mendes and his writers present this story as one for the viewer specifically to pay attention to. While most pre-Craig Bond movies of the past were never about their scripts, and never seemed to ask us to pay special attention to the plots (besides From Russia With Love), Craig's installments, being grittier and filmed more slickly, are clearly more focused on the storytelling. Both Casino Royale and Skyfall had emotional, personal stories for Bond, with scripts to match. Here in Spectre, you have Bond continuing his very personal quest for vengeance, and finally getting to the big mastermind behind all of his troubles. The writers want us to pay attention, and that's how Mendes films it. The slower scenes of dialogue and investigation here are meant to be imperative to our experience. Yet now, the story is as nonsensical and full of holes as the average Bond movie of the past.
You have a great cast here, similarly underutilized. Ralph Fiennes is effective as an M with his back to the corner. Lea Seydoux is sexy and feisty as a Bond woman with a tough streak (not such an original thing anymore though, after the more against-type Bond ladies we've already seen since Casino Royale). But for their pedigree, both being highly praised and award-winning performers, they are tasked to do the bare minimum here. The deliciously slimy Andrew Scott has a nice role here as a morally bankrupt national security head, but his character as a whole takes a back seat to Blofeld. While he's on screen though, he is perfectly hateable, something Scott is brilliant at (you may know him as Moriarty in the Cumberbatch Sherlock series). I've always enjoyed Ben Whishaw as an actor, and while he has more to do here than in his previous outings as Q, he still feels constrained by the part. If anything, the most effective and memorable supporting role here is Dave Bautista, as a particularly brutal take on past 007 henchmen like Jaws and Oddjob. The moment Bautista appears on screen, you can tell that this is a dude Bond needs to watch out for. His villain is genuinely intimidating, and indeed his battles with Bond are the nearest 007 comes to actually losing.
Enjoyable and very professionally done all around. Big names throughout the entire credits, from editor to cinematographer to composer and beyond. Technically peerless and worth seeing for any fan of Bond. The story and screenplay have their drawbacks, but this is a nice modern action movie, and finally a Craig 007 installment that seems to be channeling the classic incarnations without the midlife crisis and recent anguish since Casino Royale.
Top Secret! (1984)
Hilarious big-screen follow-up to Airplane!
During this period, Zucker-Zucker-Abrahams were on a creative roll, even if not always financially successful. Airplane! Was a huge hit, but they followed it with Police Squad!, which was arguably even stronger than Airplane! As a whole, but cancelled after just 6 episodes for what is probably the stupidest reason ever given by a broadcasting company for canceling something. They then followed Police Squad! With their most ambitious offering, Top Secret!
The humor isn't quite as sharp, consistent and relentless as Airplane! Or Police Squad!, but it's pretty darn close. The ZZA team were still in a creative "zone" here, and you have some truly inspired gags, such as an underwater fight scene that spoofs western brawls, a subplot which works partly as a farcical sequel to the cult classic Blue Lagoon, and a Frenchman who speaks English in a ridiculously over-the-top accent. As usual for ZZA, there are plenty of visual jokes to catch in the background and non-sequiturs in the dialogue, so the viewer needs to pay attention.
Using a hefty budget compared to their previous work, ZZA doubled down on the ambition and scope too. Instead of just a police procedural or intentionally cheap airplane effects, Top Secret! Takes us to the large battleground of occupied France and is filled with exaggerated action sequences and musical numbers. Clearly this was a much more elaborate production than Airplane! And Police Squad! Val Kilmer stars as a walking, singing, dancing parody of early rock'n'roll icons such as Elvis and the Beach Boys, as he becomes unwittingly embroiled in a war adventure featuring the French Resistance in Germany and other secret agents. Don't ask why a '60s-era rock star is fighting in World War 2 Europe. Nothing is really supposed to make sense, so just go along for the ride. Lucy Gutteridge (who is pretty much unknown now after retiring from acting in 1993; this will remain her biggest legacy) plays the romantic interest, a Resistance member torn between her former lover who now leads the fight against Germany, and Nick Rivers (Kilmer), in a parody of Casablanca's love triangle.
Kilmer is not known as a funny man, and is sort of like Leslie Nielsen before him. He is tasked with basically being the straight man in the middle of all the chaos. He is such an over-the-top Elvis parody that Kilmer does show off an impressive knack for comedy, but mainly he's suave and charming and somewhat "normal," while the characters around him, and the situations he gets himself into, are the main sources of humor throughout.
The legendary Omar Sharif (Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago) has an amusing and memorable role here as a secret agent who becomes comically disfigured, but after a few short scenes, he disappears from the movie. Why?? Wish he would've returned, at least towards the end. More Sharif is never a bad thing.
If you're a fan of Airplane!, Police Squad!, Naked Gun and Hot Shots, then definitely don't skip this.
Nomadland (2020)
Stunningly well-directed and solidly engaging
This film navigates some of the same thematic and conceptual terrain as movies like Wendy & Lucy, About Schmidt, Into the Wild and Wild. The escape-from-a-normal-life-to-discover-oneself narrative is a tried-and-true one, which has been explored many times over the decades, both better and worse than Nomadland does it.
So the idea itself isn't original, but the "freshness" that Chloe Zhao brings to the table here is that she sheds light on a specific subculture of people at a specific location that actually exists in the United States in large numbers. Fern's story isn't unique, and that's what Zhao is trying to tell us here. In its own way, this nomadic existence is just as systematic as living in a house and working a 9-to-5. There are support groups, RV camps, community meals, even a Youtube guru to guide Fern and her peers through the whole process. Some even maintain regular jobs. I observed the popularity of this way of life first-hand when I lived for three years in Las Vegas, Nevada (the same state that much of this film is set in). You don't even have to leave the city of Vegas to notice the impressive number of HUGE RV parks strewn throughout. Even within the city limits, along Boulder Highway at the southeast end of Vegas for instance, there are not one, not two, but seemingly about 10 different RV parks, and they all seemed almost full. And those only contain the people who navigated into town and decided to settle there. Outside Vegas along the desert highways you can see more RV parks scattered around. That vast desert area of the nation truly is a "nomadland" for hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people, many of them entire families. They have their own shops, markets and bars that cater to them.
Fern repeatedly says during the movie that she isn't homeless, merely houseless. At no point does she ever think of herself as homeless, and neither should the audience. The families living in the actual RV parks don't call themselves homeless either. For them, and for Fern, this is simply another way of life, and a completely valid one. Like Fern's sister, and like the lady with her two daughters that Fern runs into near the beginning of the movie, our own judgments on such a way of life depends entirely on the preconceptions we ourselves bring. Zhao depicts the material without editorializing, as if a documentary crew simply decided to follow McDormand/Fern around for awhile. By the end, we have to form our own opinions on whether it would be for us or not.
Let's discuss the style, which is the best thing about the movie. Zhao's technical filmmaking is brilliant here, and if nothing else, even if the movie itself isn't the most moving or entertaining, at the very least she did deserve winning Best Director. She edited the film herself as well (for which she was rightly nominated), and the rhythm and pacing are meticulous from start to finish. The cinematography is consistently beautiful, and the use of music excellent and tasteful. All of those audio-visual factors combine into a lyrical, poetic, meaningful work of art that was obviously put together in very careful fashion.
The script and structure are interesting, and for some viewers it will work completely, while for others it may be disappointing. I mentioned that this is immersive in a docudrama sort of way, as if a documentary crew just followed the protagonist around. But it's more than that. It's like this documentary crew didn't want to tell the viewer any background information about the character or her life, and didn't want to use any extraneous narration or hold the audience's hands. We just jump right into the plot as Fern loses her factory job, and as the film moves along, crucial details only become apparent to us almost in passing. Even though this is indeed a movie centered around conversations, the storytelling itself is show-not-tell, and that's the most impressive feat Zhao performs here.
Frances McDormand herself is sensational, well deserving of her Oscar by completely embodying this fragile individual as she navigates a new, late, unexpected chapter of life. I said that this was almost like watching a documentary, and a large part of that is due to McDormand's naturalistic performance. If it wasn't for the fact that the actress has a really unique look, one could easily forget that they're watching a professional, and instead following an actual Nevadan of middle-age who was recently laid off. The character of Fern teeters ever-so-carefully along the boundaries between optimism and despair, loneliness and independence, surety and doubt. Every moment you see her face, you can tell that a million conflicting thoughts are probably going through her mind. McDormand's eyes and body language speak multitudes.
So what held this back? Well, it simply wasn't quite transcendent to me, not as deeply poignant as the hype led me to believe, or that the writing seemed to be leading towards. When I think back to the film, I can't put my finger on anything I would specifically change. But even though the filmmaking here was immaculate, the overall experience still felt dry to me. I think Zhao was attempting a sort of profound epiphany when Fern decided not to stay with Dave and his family, remaining a nomad instead. But when she made that seemingly crucial decision, I didn't really feel anything. Because of the way she was performed by McDormand and written by Zhao, I never had any questions about whether she would stay with Dave or not. It was quite clear by then, during the whole movie really, that Fern was never going to be tied down to one spot again. So what exactly were we supposed to feel when she hit the road near the end? It wouldn't be such an issue if Zhao presented this segment in the same matter-of-fact tone as most of the film. But instead, the director seemed to want that part to be the cathartic peak of the film, evidenced by the way she used such evocative editing and music as Fern drove away. But since there was no suspense leading up to Fern's decision, I wanted the movie to get those scenes over with, and move on to Fern's next experience. What I'm saying is that this movie was predictable, and while not all movies are required to be unpredictable, a deliberately paced drama of self discovery should be. If a filmmaker is going to ask us to be patient and follow along with our full attention, leave us some questions until the very end, anything to keep our interest in the narrative. Unfortunately, about 2/3s of the way through the film, we already pretty much know how it's going to end. There is no danger of death, and Fern is never going to settle down again. The conclusion plays out exactly like we knew it would: she continues her journey through Nomadland.
I have a feeling my opinion might improve upon further viewings, so I'm open to a rating bump in the future. This seems to be the type of movie that will age well, a script that will work better a second and third time.
Days of Heaven (1978)
Uniquely poetic even today
I can't believe there was a time when this movie really underwhelmed me. Having always been a big fan of Malick's previous film, Badlands, when I first saw Days of Heaven in my college years, I thought it was a step backwards after a near-perfect debut. More visually stunning, sure, but the story didn't do much for me at the time, and I thought Gere was boring compared to Martin Sheen (which, okay, is still true). But over the years I've revisited this a few times, because something about it still appealed to me. If nothing else, there was the cinematography and the music, as well as the atmosphere, which I could easily get lost in despite the plot. But the more I watched it, something happened: I found myself appreciating the screenplay and themes more and more.
Malick is an underrated writer, though it may not be immediately obvious. The plot here, such as it is, is pretty simple, but the way it's presented and written are another story. The writer-director gives us an allegory of destructive adult passions (namely lust, jealousy and greed) from the perspective of a child who is forced to stay tough and grow up fast. This girl may not fully understand everything that happens the way older audiences might, but the viewer also gets the sense that she still knows more than she should. She witnesses this ugly situation and the damage it causes, and she's cognizant enough to avoid naivety, but is still young and removed enough from the events, and strong enough, that she can learn from it without being completely broken by the end. Therefore, there's more than a hint of optimism and hope when the end credits roll, even though the future seems dire from an objective perspective (now we have two female orphans wandering an unforgiving and dangerous American frontier dominated by men).
Malick pulls it off with a singular atmosphere of warm nostalgia, an atmosphere that I can't say has fully been matched by any other movie, ever. The plot itself is extremely dark, but the movie feels comfortable, like remembering one's childhood summer vacation, even though what we are actually seeing is a life filled with hardship and bad luck. The film is called Days of Heaven, not Days of Despair or Days of Hell, and that is crucial. The "golden hour" cinematography, wistful score, bittersweet and wise narration, and dream-like atmosphere, make this a ridiculously cozy experience. Not unlike Badlands, which is also very easy to watch and seemingly innocent, even while the plot depicts one big downward spiral for its characters.
The lyricism and poetry are abundant here through every second of its tight 94 minutes. Much has been said of the absurdly beautiful cinematography--every frame really could be a painting--but I feel like the strengths of the overall pacing, editing and structure are often glossed over. This movie is just as long as it needs to be. It feels relaxed but it's never, ever too slow or boring. And while the filmmaking may be very "artsy" as they say, the themes and emotions are universal and relatable. Modern audiences can still enjoy this easily. My last viewing was with my partner, who is only 31, from a different country (English is her second language) and doesn't usually watch movies that were made before 2010. She saw the original Star Wars trilogy with me for her first time last month, just to give one an idea of her film habits. Romantic comedies like Crazy Rich Asians and Filipino Netflix movies are more her speed. Yet she absolutely loved Days of Heaven, to even my surprise.
It helps that this isn't very dialogue driven, and what dialogue there is remains pretty straightforward. The overall narration by the girl is easy to follow. The acting is very visual, mostly reliant on the facial expressions of the performers. Even if we watched it on silent, it would still be possible to follow. Malick by this early part of his career was already a supreme master of visual storytelling. Arguably, he was at his peak here, at his most balanced. It struck me upon this viewing that certain shots were extremely restrained for Malick, compared to his more recent style. One example is when Bill (Richard Gere) first enters the main house of the farm owner (Sam Shephard). The camera moves slowly and smoothly across the interior as Bill takes in the luxurious surroundings, with very few cuts. If Malick shot the same scene after 2000, it would be full of extraneous camera movements and edits.
This isn't just an idyllic film with calm pastoral visuals. What strikes me more every time I revisit this is how dynamic the movie actually is. There are brawls, detailed depictions of farm work, dances and parties, a lot of underlying tension, locusts, and even gun chases. There is wind, snow, and fire. Especially fire, which is an important symbol here. There aren't just pretty looking daytime scenes, but also shadowy and dangerous nighttime scenes. There's actually a lot packed here for a 94 minute movie about a love triangle set on a farm. As a filmmaker and writer, Malick had a great understanding of how to keep things moving and engrossing, something which I think he slightly lost from The New World on.
My foreign partner remarked on something she especially appreciated, and which I think is another x-factor towards the film's success. The depiction of the time period. This movie fully immerses the viewer in a bygone era, filled with wonderful details to show how life really was. An era when trains and horses were still king, but early automobiles and planes were beginning to appear. And the great thing is, Malick doesn't make a big thing out of the fact that this is a period film. He just matter-of-factly builds this detailed, lived-in world of the early 1900s, and tells his story of passion and jealousy. The specific year isn't important, and neither is the specific place. As a result, the work feels timeless even though it brings the past to vibrant life.
Snowpiercer (2013)
Well-made art-house sci-fi focused on social commentary
This leaves me with the same slightly disappointed feeling that Bong Joon-Ho's The Host and Okja did. All three of them are astonishingly well crafted in a technical sense. Really, every single frame of Snowpiercer is immaculate; you can immediately tell that Joon-Ho is a natural behind the camera. However, something about the writing and pacing of Snowpiercer, The Host and Okja holds them back compared to the filmmaker's best movies, which are closer to mysteries and black comedies (Memories of Murder, Mother and Parasite). When he's working with a more naturalistic tableau, he can really knock it out of the park. But when it comes to more staightforward genre fare, the technical filmmaking remains peerless, yet the storytelling and overall experience lag behind.
I've seen Snowpiercer four times now, and it has gradually improved for me after each viewing. But some of the same issues stick out to me. The pacing is a bit wonky, not smooth like Joon-Ho's best work, but more of a disjointed fast-slow-fast-slow rhythm. The message and themes are a bit too on the nose while sacrificing some storytelling (whereas Parasite or even other science fiction allegories such as Robocop and Wall-E contain better balance), and the overall experience feels a bit empty to me each time.
Still, for what it's worth, the film is also strikingly well-made, unique, violent, mostly fun, and fairly unpredictable (especially for its concept).
The Father (2020)
Stage-to-screen done right
I'm not usually a big fan of movies adapted from stage plays, because the very nature of writing for the theatre places the audience's focus on dialogue, structure and performance, and I'm more of a visuals and music guy when it comes to movies. I can appreciate sharp writing but I need the extra zest of overall fine filmmaking to bring an adaptation above and beyond the theatre. I tend to be more forgiving if a beautiful looking and great sounding movie is relatively lacking in plot or dialogue, versus the opposite (a movie with great writing, but technically bland).
I'm a big fan of Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman, but the potentially sensitive subject of dementia, and the fact that this was adapted from a play by a director who was making his screen directorial debut, had me worried. Would it be as stodgy or emotionally manipulative as it could have been? The material might have worked well on stage but would it as cinema?
In that regard I was pleasantly surprised. Clearly this was a play, because it is indeed driven by the dialogue and character interactions, and almost entirely set indoors. But Florian Zeller provides some nice cinematic touches that help to raise the experience, mainly in three ways. One, his use of music. The few classical pieces here come in at just the right moments and are extremely effective whenever they do. I suspect that the music was also part of the stage production, because it's important to the protagonist's characterization; listening to music is Anthony's favored escape from reality. But here, the soundtrack fits the movie like a glove and gives it more dynamism. Two, Zeller's cinematographer, Ben Smithard, a veteran of numerous films and shows, vividly captures both the indoor and outdoor environments, most notably the main flat that contains most of the "action." The apartment complex becomes its own character, in a way, as the viewer gets to know its geography and objects. Credit must also go to the production and set designers, of course. Three, and probably most importantly, you have the excellent work by Greek film editor Yorgos Lamprinos. I haven't seen anything else he has done, but his editing here is a huge part of what makes this material translate so well as a movie. He was deservedly nominated for an Oscar.
But those are all factors that personally made this such an excellent film for ME. Of course, the main draws here for most people will be Anthony Hopkins and the writing, by an award-winning playwright. And those things are as strong as you've heard. The writing is witty, unpredictable and, by the end, poignant, as you enter the frayed mind of Anthony while he deals with encroaching dementia. Zeller's treatment of such a sensitive subject is refreshingly free of sentimentality or emotional manipulation. This is pitched almost as much like a Hitchcockian mystery as it is a drama of old age and family, and the pacing is fantastic; at a tight 97 minutes, it never overstays its welcome or drags. As is typical of great writing, the script drops only as much detail as it needs to throughout, while leaving just enough lingering questions in the viewers' minds. And beware, not all of those questions will be answered. Even after the end credits begin rolling, you will need to interpret certain plot points in your own way, and there is a lot of fodder for discussion and debate here. My partner and I couldn't agree on what really transpired in the family's past. It frustrated her, but I loved the ambiguity.
Hopkins is simply amazing here. He brings humor, anger, sadness, irascibility, strength and fragility in one fully formed and complex package of a character. He's such a natural in the role that I assumed he originated the part on stage. So It was to my surprise that I found out that not only was this film Hopkins's first time playing "Anthony," but the play was originally in French and therefore began life with a French lead in the role. Christopher Hampton, the translator, rightly receives a co-writing credit because he is a large part of why the English dialogue still crackled so well. Anybody would think it was the original language. The immensely talented Olivia Colman holds her own as the titular character's loving yet conflicted daughter, but this is mainly Hopkins's show and he is absolutely engrossing every second he's on the screen. And it's not just his facial expressions and line delivery either; it's a surprisingly physical performance; the viewer can easily gleam Anthony's varying moods and emotions merely from his body language (and he shows off some dance moves too). I haven't yet seen the late Chadwick Boseman in Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, but after witnessing Hopkins's incredible work here, I can't imagine anyone else more deserving of the Best Actor Oscar. Mads Mikkelsen for Another Round, maybe, but he somehow wasn't even nominated.
The Accountant (2016)
Accounting made fun?
I have a thing for one man armies, let me just get that out of the way now. Whether books (Jack Reacher and Mitch Rapp) to movies and series (The Equalizer, Bourne, The Man From Nowhere), I can't get enough of them. But I have standards of course. If the writing and/or filmmaking are weak, I'll notice. For example, while the first Jack Reacher and Equalizer movies were very solid, their sequels were both sorely lacking.
Here, you have a combination of two movie cliches: The one-man-army and the autistic savant. I happen to enjoy both cliches. Rain Man? Keys To The Heart? Good Will Hunting? Forrest Gump? Love that stuff, even if they are emotionally manipulative and corny. (Well okay, Gump wasn't autistic, but the focus was still on his mental handicaps and his successes despite them, so I'll include him.) Nothing in The Accountant is particularly original; it's fairly standard for both a movie about a character with a mental and/or social handicap, and a skilled action hero. But much can be said for doing something unoriginal very, very well, and combining cliches in interesting ways, and this movie does both of those. The story is well-told, the cast is strong, and the action sequences are awesome. For the first 45 minutes or so, there isn't much in the way of action, and that's not a bad thing at all because the movie takes its time in building an engaging situation with solid characters and nagging questions (why was the accountant in prison before? What happened to the brother? Who is helping him?) that are all satisfyingly answered by the end. In this day and age of fast paced storytelling which tries so hard to appease impatient young audiences, watching a Hollywood action movie starring a big name that isn't afraid to slow things down is always a welcome sight.
Ben Affleck has never been an especially convincing actor to me. Even in his more acclaimed films such as Argo and The Town, I thought his own performances were on the dull side. He isn't very good at emoting. Here, we have a much better role for Affleck because the character requires little to no emotion. What surprised me was that he also pulled off the social awkwardness of Asperger's without overdoing it. You would think Affleck would be either too stilted or extreme for such a role, but I thought he did a fine job balancing the machismo of an action hero with the awkward sensitivity of a savant.
In a smart move by the filmmakers, they surround the relatively bland persona of Affleck (hey, he can't help it, Ben just isn't very dynamic and never has been) with enjoyable side performers, including J. K Simmons, Joe Bernthal and John Lithgow, all of whom are memorable here. The story may not be the most unpredictable or original but it is just complex enough to maintain one's attention and keep some questions going, and the mathematics aspect was refreshing in this sort of action thriller. Underrated by the critics (most action movies are) and deserved to be more successful. Here's hoping they don't screw up the sequel, if it happens.
Blood Ransom (2014)
Anne Curtis is wasted
Anyone who has followed the prolific career of famous Filipina actress Anne Curtis knows that she has a lot of talent. She has been nominated for more than a dozen of acting awards and has won a few. From small scale dramas and comedies to larger budget action movies and thrillers, from her days as a child actress to her most adult roles, in countless films and series, Curtis has showed off an impressive range and star presence, almost always a charismatic performer. Which makes her performance here all the more disappointing, because she isn't given many lines and isn't called on to do much besides look pretty and intense.
Director Francis dela Torre began his career in the film industry as a cinematographer and camera operator, but he is much less experienced as a writer. This becomes apparent right away. Visually, while not exactly beautiful, it is filled with interesting shot choices and color usage. Dela Torre was a co-director of photography here and the results are decent. The script, on the other hand, also by dela Torre, is a complete mess and not much better than a typical direct-to-video flick. Mediocre pacing, uninteresting and messy plot development, boring characters. The performances are also uniformly mediocre. I'm not really a fan of vampire stories so they have to be especially strong for me to appreciate them. And this is pretty silly even for a vampire movie.
BuyBust (2018)
The nihilism of drug wars
Almost completely mindless, dumb, non-stop action movie, but filmed with lots of gusto. Matti knows how to direct a movie. He milks this simple concept for what it's worth, and puts in some innovative action sequences (including a cool one-taker that showcases Anne Curtis's athleticism).
The structure is basically The Raid, but with less martial arts, and in a self contained slum instead of an apartment complex. But the story is the same: elite police group enters area to make a bust, things go wrong, they get trapped, and have to fight their way out. There are some interesting insights into the War Against Drugs in the Philippines, but otherwise, everything about this story and script is unoriginal and as simple as can be. The point of this movie is to bring as much action as possible, and the body count here is ridiculous. As the violence gets crazier and crazier, and the deaths on all sides more numerous, you start to realize that the filmmakers have a message: the uselessness of it all. Can a nation ever win a war on drugs? Is corruption inevitable? Are the police just making life worse for the citizens? A pure and honest cop like Anne Curtis's Nina Manigan (MANigan...hehe...and there's a character here named Judas who acts like the Biblical Judas) is a rare breed, and this is a straight up drug enforcement fantasy. Like, what IF there was a good cop without one corrupt hair on his or her body, able to bust all the drug dealers? But there are no cops like Anne Curtis in real life, none that can also do all the damage she did by herself. And even if there were, such cops cannot stop every single corrupt official or bust every drug dealer. And what of all the innocent civilians she and her team murder? That will just make the country hate the police more, which the film clearly shows. If it weren't for the focus on the perspective of the citizens too, this movie would be straight up fascist. But the more balanced tone saves that, if barely.
So there's some interesting food for thought, and those themes combined with the well-done and relentless action, and slick filmmaking, place this flick on just the right side of "enjoyable." But even all the violence gets exhausting after awhile, and The Raid had far better choreography. Any astute viewer can smell the rat of the story a mile away. It's all pretty basic and predictable. But if you want to see a whole ton of people beating up and shooting each other, and bodies falling left and right for an hour and a half, then you can do much worse than this.