Change Your Image
LiamFriedman
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Spider-Man: Far from Home (2019)
Could be worse
I like the movie. Great story. Great villain. The cinematography is surprisingly creative, webslinging, action, mysterio projection sequences, minimal shot reverse shots in intimate scenes, and comedy hit a little better.
But -
What was up with MJ's minor character change to make her 'quirky' and 'not like other girls', that was unnecessary, her being a genuine person like in homecoming was enough, and Zendaya, also not that great here, she was better last time, and even in Shake it Up.
Didn't detract too much. Wasn't horrible, just noticeably worse. What did detract was the dialogue, repetitive, unrealistic, uneconomical. Was tolerable but detrimental. Few moments tad too cheesy.
But -
7/10, I missed you J K Simmons
The Front Runner (2018)
bAsEd On A TrUe StoRy (it is, so it must be good)
Hugh Jackman winning in his run for pres of USA, gets accused of adultery, drops out. End
WTF. HORRIBLE WRITING, PACING, SHOTS/CINEMATOGRAPHY DID I SAY PACING?
The movie could not decide if it was for or against Gary Hart committing adultery or on the argument of if personal life should factor into such a campaign.
Only thing keeping it from a 5 was Hugh Jackman and JK Simmons, none of the actors were bad, and my main blokes were great as always.
Short review, Wtf Hugh
Uncut Gems (2019)
My unconnected thoughts on uncut gems
Music sometimes distracting
Acting great
Not many familiar faces
Great use of timely culture
Chest tightening
Sandler delivers
Writing 💯
Needed a breather at the end of act 1
I'm not interested in basketball as a sport, but I was beyond invested
Snubbed for original screenplay over knives out or 1917 and sandlers acting over Jonathan pryce
Not the classic story of greed is bad, more over addiction and seduction/temptation and perspective
Safdies echo Scorsese and fincher without becoming derivative
No ordinary sandler movie
Interesting and unique cinematography, with some excellent choices being made
The Emoji Movie (2017)
Ripped off Wreck it Ralph and its audience
The Emoji Movie 3 out of 10.
On all levels, it is a derivative of Wreck it Ralph and similar movies, replicating its premise, characters and themes, but executed without any nuance, design, substance or purpose. Where Wreck it Ralph is built on easy nostalgia-bait, the Emoji Movie seems to be a series of advertisements and product placements for Just Dance, Candy Crush and other apps. The Emoji Movie goes so far as to copy the twist regarding the female lead.
The viewing experience is tiring as the comedy the movie strings its plot points together with is either knowingly lazy, or arrogantly naive. Humour in this movie is supposedly evident when high five throws up candy, monkeys say they are off to do "monkey business", or when Sir Patrick Stewart, the poop emoji says the words "stink", "duty", and -
Emoji 1: "Poop, youre so soft"
Sir Patrick Stewart as the poop emoji: "Not too soft I hope"
The animation was basic, but not poor and distracting, so I guess that makes it boring. The world of 'Textopolis' and the phone was very basic and bare, even with all the bright colours on the screen. The music in this movie is played very obnoxiously, with half relevant dance songs such as, wake me up before you go-go, feel this moment and cheerleader to name a few. The icing on the cake to this movie is when it ends on an impromptu dance party, where everyone comes to accept the main character instantly, kinda like, but worse than, Despicable Me, Megamind and The LEGO Movie.
The relationships between the main three characters, the high five, the meh and jailbreak was more like 3 people hanging around each other, going to the same place, than high five and meh being friends and jailbreak any sort of love interest.
The slang made to relate to kids was also outdated by the time this movie came out. Having James Corden say shade, #blessed, lit and slay was really forced and unnecessary. I would also rather leave out the references in this movie that do not appeal to kids and are not enough to appeal to adults. The poop emoji pretending to be in star trek, the culture of internet trolls and the Trojan horse virus.
Kids deserve better than a cheap 86 minute distraction - see The Lego Movie or Wreck it Ralph instead, which both executed an 'it's okay to be yourself/different' story on a far greater level.
Bombshell (2019)
Consistently disengaging
BOMBSHELL 5 out of 10
Consistently disengaging.
Charles Randolph, co-writer of best adapted screenplay Oscar winner The Big Short (with Adam McKay, based on the book by Micheal Lewis), wrote Bombshell. He should not be allowed to write alone.
The material he had to work with in bombshell had every opportunity to be engaging, however it was horribly executed with maybe 1 good scene of tension and drama.
There is a cautionary foremessage about the presence of dramatisation in the movie. There is no way the movie is less boring than the real events that occurred.
No character was given any depth, with the only distinguishing feature being the A-list actor in the part. Randolph could not choose a focus for the story, not any of the characters or even the main issue was followed to any significant degree; instead, the movie diverts to unnecessary tangents about what our characters are up to in their personal lives in what I can only assume was an attempt to humanise the cardboard cutouts. I couldn't care for any of the characters.
By an acting standpoint, I managed to spot 3 good actors, Charlize Theron, Margot Robbie and John Lithgow. Lithgow's performance was genuinely engaging as was most of Theron's.
The few Australian accents in the movie from the Murdoch family were laughable as they parkoured between British, American and have-heard-of-Australia levels of accuracy.
Maybe in an earlier draft of the script Kate McKinnon served a purpose, Bill O'Reilly was more than a name or Margot Robbie wasn't reduced to an extended cameo, but these are only some of the useless elements that made this movie feel an hour longer than it was.
Thematically, the story is hollow, with the only thing the movie says is 'sexual harassment bad', delivering a message beyond safe, that it barely registers as a message. Randolph was unable to even fully commit to any political view on such a significant event, with certain scenes trying to be apolitical and political, displaying anti-trump notions whilst emphasising the reliability and integrity of Fox News, with only a slight left lean, leaving the story forgettable. (The Trump sections were played as cute references?) However, seeing how it reflects my political ideology, it must be good 10/10.
But wait. Isn't it hypocritical for such a big Hollywood movie to condemn sexual harassment whilst also practicing a far more toxic culture than a Fox News office? No because the movie is anti-sexual-harassment, so I think they learnt their lesson.
There were very few scenes of significant CGI use, but boy were those 2 scenes very distracting. An actor on a roof looked like they were floating, with surrounding buildings and rooftop antennae looking less real than their wigs, and an actor was not well composited into archive footage.
Consider me thoroughly disappointed. Should this win any of the 3 Oscars it was nominated for? Probably not.
The Irishman (2019)
Scorsese has not lost it
The Irishman is a classic gangster-mafia film in the genre of Goodfellas and Godfather, delivering a faithful yet fresh experience. The movie tells the story of Robert De Niro, the Irishman, and his place in the Italian mafia, led by Joe Pesci, and his relationship with work union icon Jimmy Hoffa, Al Pacino.
The acting in this movie is stellar. After being disappointed with De Niro and Pacino in recent years, I was more than pleasantly surprised with their performances, with Al Pacino being a standout, captivating in every scene. Huge credit to Scorsese's direction, bringing out the best in De Niro, Pesci and Pacino with a visible passion in each of their performances.
The movie takes place over 5 decades, and the makeup and performances really selling the different ages of the characters. 76 year old Robert De Niro seamlessly transfers from being in his spritely 30s to his crippled 80s.
I had one issue with the movie in one of its action scenes, where at kicks to the face and stamps on the foot, the lack of contact and timing with the sound was laughable. But that sequence is less than a minute long, with other action pieces being much more polished.
A main concern I had going into it was the runtime. However, knowing the runtime, you should be alright. The pacing in the writing dragged at no point, never feeling slow, and consistently investing me into the story. The runtime is definitely not gratuitous, with no scenes able to be cut without meaningful sacrifice. I have definitely sat through many 2 hour movies that felt far longer than this. I would highly recommend this film to be watched in one sitting if possible.
Knives Out (2019)
Would prefer a knife in me
GENERAL REVIEW
Going in, I was expecting an energetic Edgar Wright feel, and complex Sherlock Holmes mystery in which the audience tries to solve it at the same time. What I got was a cookie cutter 'mystery' that was different from others in its genre only in its use of bright colours, rather than any sort of trope and convention subversion or parody.
SPOILER TIME
In regards to acting, Christopher Plummer, Ana de Armas and Chris Evans gave great performances. 0 complaints for the main 3, I thoroughly enjoyed Harlan and Marta's scenes. There are more than 3 members of the cast, of which I have complaints; Jamie Lee Curtis and Micheal Shannon among others gave performances that seemed to change personalities every few lines, probably due to Rian Johnson's directing. Don Johnson was good, LaKeith Stanfield was not, others were mediocre or just less.
Special Daniel Craig section. Daniel Daniel Daniel. What was that. The screenplay reads "Blanc ... speaks in the gentlest southern lilt you have ever heard in your life." That is not what I was forced to listen to. The accent was very distracting and I could only hope for a case of Stockholm syndrome that never came. His character was meant to act as an absurdist archetype satire of the noir detective, but instead he came across as an annoying detective who did not diverge from the archetypal role. If that didn't bother you then it would have been a good performance
As mentioned I was expecting more Edgar Wright-esque editing and cinematography that the trailer promised me.
Overall, the writing is very basic, being a typical murder mystery. I am unsure if you can even call it a murder mystery when you find out the truth a quarter through. Throughout the story, there were many setups with minimal or no payoff, e.g. shoe blood, where is Marta from (Harlan should have commented to Ransom during their fight where she is from). There were also too many inconsistencies, like how the stairs did not actually make a noise every time, some people went up with a noise and down without because Rian Johnson forgot.
For the final reveal; Marta must be especially talented to feel "tincture and viscosity" of vials, a quality you might be able to feel when you are drawing a syringe, but she had made the choice already which solution to use, maybe density or weight would be acceptable but the given explanation of her being such a good person that her vail choice was correct is pretty dumb. Also, the shots for Fran's last words were different, where she said "you did this" in the scene and first flashback, but "Hugh did this" in the last. These 2 issues detract from the fun of watching murder mysteries, in which an audience should be able to find the killer if they have been paying attention, instead the script pretended like you should have known these facts.
The suspect game instead was played by cast knowledge. By looking at the cast you can see it's either Jamie Lee Curtis, Micheal Shannon or Chris Evans, personally I guessed Micheal Shannon due to his typecasting, but when I realised that all 3 of Harlan's children where the same character, with different jobs, it was then obviously the built up character named Ransom. Ransom. His name is Ransom.
This leads me to one of my main critiques: Unnecessary characters. Despite all 3 of Harlan's children being the same, the "nazi kid" served 1 purpose that could have easily been delivered by another character, the granddaughter, Katherine Langford served a whopping 2 purposes that all together could have been dropped and exchanged. There were 2 cops and Blanc for some reason, of which the comedic policeman was not funny.
Lastly, too many convenient devices like the stairs that made a noise 'every time', Marta vomiting when she lies, the dogs choosing to like and dislike people, or the various murder mystery cliches that excuse themselves through being self aware (secret doors and prop knives)
Joker (2019)
Lucky to have Joaquin Phoenix
ACTING - 7.5/10
Joaquin Phoenix kept this movie from being a 5, but the other actors kept acting from being 8. Robert de Niro was disappointing, he felt tired and his dialogue itself was clunky. Frances Conroy was distracting and hard to believable.
MUSIC - 4/10
The original orchestral score was less than bland, with the song choices being highly inappropriate for the tone of the movie (Rock 'n' Roll (Part 2)). The sound editing was really distracting and overall poor.
EDITING - 5.5/10
Annoying and uninspired. The edits were at points counterproductive, mixing past dream like sequences with the next scene; not purposefully working to make the audience question the reality of the movie, rather, carelessly confusing the audience.
PRODUCTION DESIGN - 7.5/10
This is the only other category I enjoyed from the movie. Gotham looked well constructed as a whole, but there were quite a few cheesy elements that tried to be smart. Internal settings were, for the large part, well done.
WRITING - 5.5/10
The movie begins asks many questions it fails to answer or even finish asking. The story was very confused, not knowing what it wanted from many of the aspects, Sophie was useless and was basically used to show how Arthur was crazy, stalks, and hallucinates.
A wasted character or at least wasted time. Why the did they include a single black mother and only have her as a quasi-love interest.
Few too many coincidences, did Arthur even do anything in relation to the movement? Was it going to happen anyway, just without clown masks?
The 80s setting was also useless. I feel that it was only there to make the movie seem more sophisticated through the inclusion of class warfare and smoking.
The main monologue at the end was really forced, as was the unnecessary fan service.
A lot of the writing they wanted to seem realistic and gritty and different from other superhero movies came off as unrealistic and cheesy.
CINEMATOGRAPHY - 5.5/10
Damn was the framing and blocking bad. And the composition. And shot type. Very distracting. Breaking 180 degree rule without reason like 4 times in a row because its convenient for the camera? Sure. Slow motion for the purpose of seeming arty, and smarty? Yep.