Reviews

This movie is cooler and cooler the more I think about it - it's a pretty modern American drama: no one is clean, everyone has secrets, the only real relationship is family. It's also a slasher film, in which the nameless, unexplained psycho who does the deed doesnt show up or do anything until people start to 'transgress' or reveal their past mistakes - instead of drugs and sex and drinking at the lake, the moral crimes of the seventies and eighties in movies, instead it's infidelity, rage, duplicity, a lack of loyalty.

The characters err, they are punished - a pretty standard horror movie formula, but because of the quality of the acting and script, it really plays like a drama, almost until the end of the film. That's a neat trick, especially for Franco's first time out as a director.

In regards to the spate of really poor reviews: there's a new kind of amateur film critic {let's be clear, I'm one too, we all are} who views anything at all that isn't patiently explained in exposition to be an indication that the movie is bad and 'unrealistic'. I blame yout*be reviewers tearing into every movie looking for ways to fill time, but the result is that those viewers encounter a film like this - which is calm and patient and engrossing, but which chooses to explain *nothing* about itself, and these new amateur critics decide the movie is bad because of that choice, while thinking it was the result of mistakes in making the movie.

I really, really dug this, and heartily recommend it.

Most of this film's failures are outside of the tense, somewhat grinding combat, which I think were excellently rendered and plotted. The film and Hanks do a good job of expressing the anxiety of naval combat - the sweeping, indirect nature of the conflict, how enormous most of the distances are, the burden on command to maintain awareness and make decisions. Special attention is paid to Hanks' stamina and fatigue, which a long with a handful of silent moments in response to terrible things, stand in for most of the captain's character.

The rest of his character is a perfunctory, habitual sort of faith that I am familiar with seeing someone live, and find peculiar as a choice for a film. Hanks' faith, here, appears to mostly be going through the motions of prayer, because there's so very little else of him on display.

Where the movie falls apart for me is in how disinterested the film makers are in the reason and context for this crossing and subsequent battles. In a moment where fascism is once again on the rise, and America is the ground it springs from, a great deal of care seems spared to avoid offending any Nazis that might be watching.

Indeed, when Hanks' ship manages to sink one of the uboats that is hunting them - all completely devoid of Nazi iconography, in another choice that seems so strange I spent a little while trying to research if the Nazi navy specifically didn't depict the swastika...the absence was never mentioned - as men start to cheer their victory, Hanks looks crestfallen, and makes a point of mentioning the Nazi dead among those the conflict cost.

The immediate sensation is that of a studio not wanting to offend one of its target audiences - that being, I suppose, American fascists and neo-nazis. So the context is drained away, which combined with the aimless vastness of the ocean, and lack of any visual reference points, establishes the film as sort of...seeking vacuum. Which, again, seems extremely inappropriate as White Supremacists grow bold on our soil.

I'm not much for the jingoism of war, but a great number of people, largely civilians, many Americans, were murdered at sea by Nazi uboats - it seems peculiar to simply borrow the form, submarines, without then instilling in them the horror they represented.

One of the most successful motifs in the film was the eerie, tortured whale noise that played when the uboats, particularly the Grey Wolf, came on screen - it gave them a profound menace. Which made it very strange when, with 25 minutes or so to go, the crew of the Greyhound confront and sink their nemesis...and no one really says or does anything. It just sort of happens, and then they go back to steering the ship.

Realistic? Maybe. But sort of crap as a film, especially *knowing* the context of when this film is set. In ten years, if a younger person happens on this...there will be nothing to mark it as taking place in a global war against evil. It's just...some boats, and a very tired Hanks, seemingly intended to appeal to conservative christian audiences bc he says his prayers before having breakfast?

The bulk of this movie, the fight, would have gotten 5 stars from me, which is quite good, but the choices made about...everything else, really lay it low. I think this is an interesting movie for naval history fans, bc it *appears* to do a good job with the difficult levers that must be worked to fight with a ship. But as a film, it's cold, and suspicious, and I would avoid it.

It's so hard to figure a film like this. Inside the constraints and the limited understanding I have of what Autism is, what movies tend to suggest Autism is, Tye Sheridan is thunderingly good, here. This is a quiet movie, with a soft pace, and surprisingly little meat on its bones - there is the suggestion of a mystery thriller, but its more open than that. It manages to feel, again mostly bc of Sheridan, quite complex, while actually running very lean and with good momentum.

The problem, then, is that I have no idea if this film is as unfair and exploitative as worry that it is. All the supporting cast is tremendous - it's heartening, always, to see Hunt and Leguizamo. Both are superior actors, and both show up for his piece. Ana de Armas is everything - despite the handful of big movies under her belt, I don't understand her relative obscurity. She dominates the camera.

But there is no movie without Sheridan, and there is no plot, no part, without this worrying depiction of a young Autistic man who is also a chronic, criminal voyeur. I am left wondering if there wasn't a version of this movie where a young Autistic man meets a young woman whose sibling was Autistic, and in the understanding that is forged there, find a brief, beautiful relationship. The need to intertwine Autism, and indeed any neurological, developmental condition, with criminality to make the character 'worthy' of inclusion in a film feels like a deeply regressive problem - an indictment on audiences AND the industry.

Because while Sheridan's performance is compelling, his proclivities in the film are villifying, and I have real concerns about how this film paints the condition - Aspergers specifically, Autism generally. And if the film is built, as I feel it is, a feeling somewhat reinforced by a few comments by Hunt's Ethel, entirely on a foundation of the idea that it is Bart's Aspergers that fuels his voyeurism, I think that foundation is not stable. I think the movie fails, because it is built on a lie.

There's so, SO much I like about this. The failure of framing, the insistence on intertwining Autism with voyeurism, makes me want to give it a single star - the performances, the film-making, the drive would merit a 5 from me, normally. {A very good rating} So I've settled on a 3, because of all the good work. I'm just sad at some of the choices, and that there's still room for this sort of framing and exploitation in our media.

I remember sitting in The Matrix: Reloaded, during the much hyped fight between Neo and all the Smiths, thinking 'This would have been a lot cooler if they'd just put a bunch of guys in makeup'. The technology just wasn't there - Neo and the Smiths all looked like weird, bendy cartoons, moving in a strange approximation of humanity, but still badly triggering the uncanny valley.

Given the hype about Gemini Man, I was expecting some improvements on that technology...but, again, I found myself thinking 'they just should have gotten a good double'. Jackie Chan was fighting himself more convincingly twenty years ago - there simply isn't the technology, yet, to really, truly animate people. I suppose they have to keep trying, but it robbed this film of a pair of cool fight scenes, for basically no payoff.

Now, the...youthening of Will Smith thoughout the other parts of this film was impressive, and much closer to the mark. There were angles, and moments that the illusion collapsed, but the ruse was aided by the age difference, and Smith did a really good job of differentiating these selves he was playing. I hope someday we get to hear from Smith about why he chooses the films he does - he's a better actor than he ends up in vehicles for.

Genuinely weird to see Clive Owen up and about, and this is as good a job as he's done of not being himself as I can recall in a long, long time. Winstead is always good value, and I want her to get the roles that her being Sigourney Weaver Part 2 demands that she should. Russel Wong is a delight, and I'm thrilled he's getting so much work.

I liked this, a lot. Flawed story, and as is the case with a lot of Smith properties, seems to be trying to do one more thing than the screenplay can handle - this happens in Cruise films, too, but Smith remains likable in those collapses...Tom, less so, I think. This one struggled bouncing between lovely, well thought out modern shooter scenes, to just...late game reshoots with explosions. Very strange, especially given the budget.

More than worth checking out, this film definitely suffered for having an unperfected special effect positioned as its selling point, instead of Will Smith.

First, the bad:

• Mothman ass opening credits. Genuinely looks like an X-files episode. Utterly at odds with the movie they made.
• Director has no idea who the adversary is/what it wants/what we're supposed to know about it, or think that it is. Not knowing this, there's nothing communicated by any of the choices, and aside from some cool ass creature design, and some absolutely gut seizing scares (which will hit extra hard if you are scared of tight spaces or of drowning), the adversary remains largely unknown the whole movie: but not in a cool, on purpose sort of way.
• Studio stayed out of things for the most part, but the finale is just...why? Sacrifice? Very noble. Retribution, though? Not in the cards. Director presents presence of the adversary as due punishment for humanity's transgressions pretty early on...yet someone chooses a 'let's blow this all up and take you out' finish? Didnt fit, didnt like it.

The Good

• Delightful cast. TJ Miller surprises, and his camp is welcome against the bleak backdrop. Kristen Stewart is terrific; she's enormously *in* the movie, and rarely seems to be acting, which is a contagious thing - her conversations with other people are rare fare for movie screens; it seems like people talking to eachother in an insane crisis. Not delivering lines. Unusual and welcome.

-Kristen Stewart is so hot it's upsetting and distracting. Someone was like 'So, I heard you liked Sigourney Weaver changing into a space suit. How about that, but for forty minutes?' Weirder bc it doesn't feel lascivious, she's just absurdly fit and covered in water for a long time.

• The suits/props/real sets. Feels like it came from late 80's-early 90's - the diving suits, in particular, have that uncompromised feel to them. It's a great design vision throughout, and it NEEDS it, because the movie doesnt have a good sense of place, and the sets really step up to entertain in that absence.
• The adversary is spooky as heck. Everything after the little one is cool as heck...though, why a super-subterranean, super-deep ocean...biped? Why do they have eyes? Nothing else down there does. Miller jokes about them looking like slenderman, and they do, which is spooky, but...bizarre? Coupled to never giving them any clear purpose, the humanoid form seems like a mistake.

I'm pleased I rented it, really enjoyed it, and am probably going to check it out again - we'll see if the bad choices make a second watch unpalatable.

So, first off, the charisma of Thompson and Hemsworth does not disappoint - they are delightful on camera, and with each other, and I hope they star opposite one another in a dozen more things.

This movie, though, is burdened by too many 'This Is A MIB Film So We Have To Include This' moments - like, honestly, twenty minutes of dialogue and conversation that do not serve the plot in any meaningful way, or spark the delight that the first film managed to convey out of the secret alien world around us. Which is frustrating, because so much of it wasn't necessary when the protagonist, Thompson's M, already knows what's up - we didnt need quite so much 'oh shoot, aliens' content, and she gave the film an excuse it didn't opt to use.

The dueling arcs of the film, Neeson's 'the universe has a way of things being where they are supposed to' or whatever it was, and the spy-ish 'there's a mole in the organization' were both served with too many momentum wounding moments, which left the film feeling like a drag for all but thirty or so minutes of actual *stuff*, and then still ending up with an incredibly rushed finale, which suffered from a profound lack of tension.

The whole thing, and this happens sometimes with effects heavy films, feels a bit...stapled together. And while much of that is salved by lead duo's star power, it's not enough to save it. Still better than MIB 2, though!

Saw it for free thanks to Starz donating some time due to epidemic - a fun quarantine flick, but not something I'd pay for.

This movie is bad in so many ways, it's difficult to focus on any one collapsed support as being the thing that ultimately laid the structure low, but a smattering are:

• This is a sequel, that actively ignores vast swaths of what has come before it, in confusing and dizzying ways
• the Phoenix saga stuff is really well known and defined, and charming and well-loved, and they decided to do something completely different and also bad.
• this is probably the worst dialogue in a franchise of movies with incredibly bad dialogue
• They made up a whole shapeshifting people to support their bad plot, ignoring how Marvel already has a notable shapeshifting space-faring people, and of course, already had a good Phoenix plot that they didnt use.
• Fassbender's supposed to be 63 and they didn't even try to use any make-up or anything; he's just...himself. This happens with everyone.

But props to Sophie Turner, who managed an invested, engaging performance despite having nothing at all to work with.

Thank goodness these horrible films are over.