Reviews

Let me come back here and as just this in a few hours. Because I will binge the rest immediately. Parasyte The Maxim is one of my top three favorite animes of all time. I did not think for a second that telling a different story in that universe would be as impactful, and maybe it won't fully be when it is over. But this starts absolutely fantastic. From the music, the camera work, the acting, the effects, the twist in how the mutation work. I just hope this manages to touch on some of the big questions that the original anime did. So far it is very promising to where it leads. After seeing some of my favorite books having a solid iteration on Netflix in 3 Body Problem it certainly seems to me that Netflix is in a new creative peak. Bravo!

First part, I was surprised how much I enjoyed it. I knew that the movie had gotten some bad reviews, but I had not read any of them. And I found myself thinking "but this is a great, over the top, spy action comedy, what is not to love about that!".

Then midways, something happens, and the movie spirals into all kinds of problems.

Firstly, it drags out for way, way, way too long. From fantastical action and good one liners it turns into a snore fest with redundant, lengthy scenes trying to establish some sense of emotional gravitas. Problem is, BDH has zero range, and became nothing but annoying and downright bad at what she was supposed to after.

Secondly, it bacame clear that it was style over substance. Which I one hundred percent can support, if the style is cool, creative, innovative, fun, esthetically pleasing. It never fully was, and it never really committed, becoming a jigsaw of puzzle pieces forced together that really did not fit.

Thirdly, under utilized actors. Lots of great small roles, none got to shine, and especially SLJ had one of his worst roles for years, mostly reduced to acting like an excited 5 yo in the end.

In the end, the movie was somewhat saved by an always fun and excellent Sam Rockwell. And unfortunately dragged down massively by, I'm sincerely sorry to say, a typically bad BDH. Not often I say this but the casting director really picked the wrong main actress with this one.

As others, I really wanted to love this. I really like Alaqua Cox, I think she is great in the role as Echo. Vincent d'Onofrio is amazing as always, and the rest of the cast is great. Sound design is probably the best I've heard in an MCU production, cinematography is beautiful. And I truly adore how Marvel got together with the Choctaw Nation to honor the heritage.

Problems for me are unfortunately that the story is weak, motivation for the characters never get fleshed out properly. And the entire storyline and all scenes with Kingpin is making him so out of character I barely recognize the violent force of fear that he is supposed to project. I wish they would have taken their time with this, maybe made it 3-4 episodes longer, and revised the script and most of all, character motivations. I'll give it a 6 mostly because Chula reminded me so much of my late grandma that all scenes with her had me in tears. This series deserved better.

I've seen 3 Shyamalan movies this year. First, Knock at the Cabin. Which I thought was surprisingly good and I was thinking, could this really be, has he returned to form?

Then I watched Old, and I was infuriated, puzzled, mind blown to see such an ensemble of fantastic actors all acting so atrociously bad.

Now, The Visit cements to me the "why". Because here again, the characters are written so poorly, no acting in the world can save this kind of trash.

I am starting to think that, maybe Shyamalan and his twists are really just preparing us for the biggest twist of all: Shyamalan himself is really from another planet. This is why he can't write believable characters even if his life was at stake. It's like if Michael Jackson had tried to write a genuinely authentic story about life in a rural small town. I don't know if Shyamalan doesn't see regular, normal people no more, or what his problem is. He makes very cool concepts. But his characters are nothing like real, normal people, not in any way. They talk weirdly, the act strangely, and yet, he keeps on making dialogues heavy movies that makes me embarrassed for every single line delivered. Maybe start making alternative, artsy movies abiut aliens and shapes and colors and stuff, man. Because these characters, these dialogues, these motivations they are all some of the very, very, very worst that I have seen in modern movies.

So, I'm a 43 year old guy who grew up in the 80s and as a kid I rented just about every single horror movie made in the 80s. I devoured it all, loved Stephen King movies, had traumas from watching the original Poltergeist well up into my 20s. And it still holds up, with its build up and sense of mystery.

But this piece of crap... There is no way that anyone in 2023 sincerely think of this as a "good" or even "passable" movie. The script is atrocious, directing is laughably bad. Not a single scene aspires to be genuinely scary. I laughed out loud several times. Keep your childhood memories intact.

Starts out pretty well. I love philosophical sci-fi like this. But very much like Raised by Wolves. It ends up as idiotic as possible. It falls flat on what it tries to in last few episodes; silly character "development", mystery, motivation, plot holes, zero emotional gravitas. It even sounds like the voice actors realized it by their decreasingly flatter delivery on dialogue. A real let down. But hey, lots of people seem to like the abysmally written stupidity that the first season of Raised by Wolves spiraled into as well so what do I know. Great score by the brilliant Ryuichi Sakamoto at least.

Let me just start off by stating that I had absolute no problems with the initial premises of neither the cast, nor the interpretation for this movie.

I love my Marvel-movies and comics. But F4 are originally from a different age, and I can very well understand how any filmmaker would find it difficult to translate the source material to the big screen in 2015.

So, I kept an open mind. And no matter how much hate this movie got during production, I still was looking forward to make up my own opinion on it. Too bad it failed on all levels.

The cast is actually very good. So is the director, at least I thought he did a marvelous job on Chronicle. But they all fail miserably here. I cannot evenbegin to wrap my head around how such a talented cast are seemingly so incredibly uninspired. The direction is flat and boring, everything feels extremely one-dimensional and uninspired. Editing was bad, music didn't fit well, script and antagonists were shallow and felt rushed, and even the sound effects, costumes, make-up, and every other single element of this movie failed. How this is possible with such a budget and so much talent is to me, again, an huge mystery.

I didn't actually believe that I'd see any superhero movie as bad as the original two F4s again. And, of course, the insanely botched Ghost Rider movies. But this one is right down there with them, if not worse.

This is insanely bizarre and puzzling to me. I've seen some really shitty movies all the way through in my life. I was the one guy left in the cinema when Batman and Robin ended years back. Well, me, and one other guy whom had fallen asleep, apparently. All the others left pretty early on.

Point is, I see all movies through when I first start on it, no matter what. But I couldn't bare this one more than halfway through. After around 200 cringe worthy fat jokes in the first 15 minutes, and one plump clichè after another, I had more than enough. Mind you, I'm a normal build guy, not taking offense because of any self-loathing, to put it mildly. But I do take offense in tedious repetitive jokes.

I love idiotic comedies like Hangover and Project X as much as any other. I even thought Bridesmaides was really funny. During my 40 minutes with Spy, I think I smiled twice. It'll forever be one of the greatest mysteries in cinema history to me why this is rated higher than already mentioned Batman and Robin.

I am probably one of the few that thought a Ghostbusters reboot had potential to become funny. Especially since I really like Kristen Wiig. But not after this, not at all.

Paul Feig is on his way to becoming the Michael Bay of comedy to me.

Wow. I had no idea what to expect when I put this on, but it blew me completely away. I am certain that the pacing may alienate many a viewer expecting every, "good" sci-fi to be filled mainly with spectacular future-tech fighting, and maybe scratch the surface of big questions in a futuristic society.

Advantageous do approach the latter, although nuanced, and more subtle than most films in this genre do. First and foremost, Advantageous focus on what defines the parent/child-relationship through portrayals of emotions and behavior that feel real. Not overly dramatic, not "scripted" like in most movies, but like the breathing dialectics of how those mechanics do work in real life.

The stage is set in a dystopian future. There are elements of class conflict, and philosophical approaches to defining the Id and the Ego. But these are still all secondary to the parental element. I didn't feel that the topics were rushed, too complicated, pretentious or superficially presented in any way, but that might be a matter of my approach as a viewer; my focus on the movie while it ran, and my general interest in the subjects in my own life.

I also found Advantageous to be stylistically excellent. From the general designs, locations, wardrobe, make-up, CGI. The lead actors did a great job, and the directing was superbly executed. Same goes for both editing and the atmospheric soundtrack; technical elements that I find myself often annoyed at in many a modern movie.

I'd put Advantageous under the same banner as Her and Ex Machina, for comparison. Although it should be noted that the melancholic joyfulness from Her, and the enigmatic suspense from Ex Machina are both lacking completely here as Advantageous is a lot more of a subtle epic, with a focus on the humane interrelationships much more than what both those movies do. And to me, that was exactly what made Advantageous such a brilliant, unique gem, although I dearly love both Her and Ex Machina as well.

Many people have some unconditional love for certain directors. Well, so do I. But that doesn't mean that it should be near completely impossible to approach new material from said director on a somewhat critical level. District 9 was one of my favorite film released after 2000, and still is . I just saw a screening of Chappie in Oslo yesterday, and, I'm sorry to say though, but Chappie was literally the stupidest film that I've seen since the 80s. I get the analogies to real-world politics and current situations in Blomkamps movies, and I admire him for trying to incorporate just that. It worked slick as hell in District 9, failed a bit flat in Elysium. But in Chappie, there really is no end to the logical flaws, extremely underdeveloped characters, rushed, fairytale of an excuse of a storyline to push events in the movie forward etc.

I study anthropology myself, and the questions of ethics, racial/social discrimination and problematization of basic human nature that Blomkamp raises are always very intriguing to me. Unfortunately nothing works out in those areas in Chappie.

The relationships that Chappie himself develop with the other characters was quite interesting, but the movie played out more unbelievable than any Dolph Lundgren flick from the 80s. I admit that it could be me failing to see the tongue-in-cheek action-homage here. And I should note that a lot of people in the cinema applauded at the end. But it should also be noted that a lot of the people in the cinema had quite a few beers, I suppose.

I had great expectations on the philosophical questions to be raised in Asimov's spirit, and looked forward to a few laughs, and some great action in between. I had a few laughs for sure, but besides that, I thought it was genuinely bad, if not abysmal.

Do people force themselves to like a movie if they find the concept cool enough? I am beginning to wonder after seeing all the love that this seemingly get here on the message boards. I found Automata to be very stylistic, although way too sterile and neatly "staged" (unlike Blade Runner and Oblivion imo). Horrible overacting from all, major characters (I blame that on the director), possibly a stylistic move as well, but I didn't like it. Melodrama was way too forced to me in this one, seeping through the acting, the blunt, weird motivations from everyone, and most of all the violin-whiny soundtrack that was meant to punch you in the face with the importance of every other scene, as if the score wanted to excuse the lack of actual substance in the script. Also, although the concept is clearly derived from the great ideas of intellectual author Asimov, the end product is about just as cheesy, obvious and simplified as in I, Robot. Indie movie The Machine questioned many of the same issues in a lot smarter, much cooler way, and on an budget probably just a fragment of this.

Looking at my ratings for the last 8 years or so, I came to realize that this is the 6th movie that I have rated a 1. Skinwalker Ranch is probably the one film that I could single out that really, really deserves it. More so than Batman & Robin, more so than the remake of The Fog. Even more so than Barely Legal Lesbian Vampires. Where do one start to describe the utter, brilliant mess of nothingness that makes Skinwalker Ranch? First of all, the concept of this being a true, eerie place really is unsettling. After watching this, I couldn't care less about the whole place though. People often take a dislike to the lost- footage genre in general, but I don't really have any problems with that. I loved movies like Chronicle and Europa Report. But then again, movies like this really gives the genre a bad name, if not filmmaking in general. Using half-ways familiar actors like Michael Horse (Twin Peaks) really destroys much of that docu-aspect from the very beginning. The whole movie is a mishmash of a wide variety of paranormal concepts, that all has in common that they end nowhere. There are unbelievable amounts of easy scares, absurdly plastic-felt acting/directing throughout the entire movie, and the most horrifying aspect of the entire movie is the laughably bad script. I easily find forgiving aspects in the most hated of productions, and I just as easily get jumpy, even from the most ridiculous horrors. But this gave me absolutely nothing but series of yawns, some laughs at the stupidest/most "scary" scenes, and a great deal of sighs. Not even "so bad that it is good" like Trolls 2. Just stay miles and miles away from this garbage.

Soon a hundred years of horror. And still, filmmakers in this genre mostly rely on easy scares accompanied by violins in sudden crescendo. "Haunt" is a typical manifest of those rules, nothing less, and certainly nothing more. Once every leap year or so, there is an original approach to the genre. But this is definitely not one of those. Formula- based, utterly predictable from the very beginning, stereotypical characters, generally uninspired... The halfway forgiving aspect was the technical part, hence the 3/10. But there is something seriously wrong with a movie for me when all that is left to bother with are the most clinical aspects of it. Why do any filmmaker feel the urge to tell a story told a billion times before in the exact same way? I watch a lot of horror because I always hope for a good one. But I am beginning to feel tired from looking for something shiny in this vast pile of poo. I guess they made some money from it, which seems impossible not to however flat out bad the end product is in this genre. It always seems to be a bunch of hardcore horror fan-boys and -girls whom madly love all these movies just because of the tags more than anything else.

I was really gonna let this one go after rating, just erase it from my mind. But after seeing so many ovations in the reviews, I suddenly felt the urgent need to balance things out a bit.

First of all, I do like weird, low-cost indie movies. So this is in no way a genre-bashing, nor is it a "I didn't get it, so f**k y'all who are better than me"-kind of approach. There are a couple of elements that I see people easily read into this production, which I in no way see though.

For starters, it is the social commenting. OK, teenage boys rape as soon as they get a chance. Disturbing, huh? And it really says something in the most intricate, subliminal, and psychologically thrilling ways of how teenage culture, manliness and all works for this generation, in our general, western culture etc etc. It is just so that it does not. People seem to find the theme and concept in itself so different from your everyday Hollywood-productions that they think the premise in itself is somewhat genius. Well, I guess it could be. But problem is, the characters are not even once believable throughout the entire movie. Their actions are mildly retarded at the very best, as is all the dialog between them. Not to mention the mediocre acting, or directing for that matter.

Then there is all these comments about this being "art". Now, I have great respect for arts, as I have great respect for individual perception on how to define arts for someone. But seriously guys. I will not call any movie production "artsy" just because the pacing is slow. Or, because of the fact that there is a semi-conscious idea behind how to make use of light and dark in the most basic ways. Nor do I like to call it "art" just because the idea behind something sets it apart. It also need something more substantial, which I didn't find Deadgirl to have whatsoever.

To give an example of horrifying, different wickedness that I do appreciate, I did find a film like Martyrs to be very, very good. Then again, that is of course, my very own taste, so I do not want to project anything upon others. To each his own.

But please. Do make up your own mind about Deadgirl, and just don't feel the need to find this to be a masterpiece just because so many others do so. Personally, I found it to be one of the worst movies that I've seen in quite a while. Not because the idea was disturbing, or because I didn't "get it". But because I found it to be a horrible production in most every way.

As so many here on the board, "I really wanted to like this". I think there are two kind of approaches to Hemlock Grove though, roughly speaking. You have the people who looooove the concept of supernatural mysteries in themselves so much that they don't care about the execution, as the concept in itself intrigues them enough to be delighted. Then you have the boring, clinical kind like myself, who may pick apart the elements that make a show even though they do like it.

I find the tone to be pretty schizophrenic, as it is seemingly dark, "adult" and pretty graphic at times. But all the characters in the show, with no exceptions really, are written like 2-dimensional cartoons that are supposed to be easily digested by casual watchers. I have never seen a series with such high production costs look so cheap at times as HG do. People have noted the blue-screen driving scenes before me, but there is much more that gives me the feel of poor production in general. Most importantly I never get a feel of the town itself. Compared to Bon Temps in True Blood for an example, a town which felt like it had an identity almost immediately, even though it wasn't approached in the iconic ways that HG tries to.

As said, writing is pretty poor in general, directing is limited at best and is mostly frustrating. Sound-design is dreadful at times, blunt and often annoyingly invasive, editing mediocre and inconsistent. The only thing that got me through was Bill Skarsgård, whom in my opinion went out of the bounds set by the director and did a really good job of portraying a pretty complex character.

I will not say that HG sucks, but it is just painfully mediocre in all aspects.

Monsters could have been a cool road movie with vile creatures. It could have been a great portrait of two characters facing the unknown. It could have been a beautiful depicting of human nature on a more philosophical scale. It could have been breathtaking visuals of some post-apocalyptic scene. It could have been pulsating, eerie tension, a sweet tale of impossible love, or a political statement of some sort. It is neither. I see that people whom very much enjoy Monsters tend to use words as "lush" and "serene" to describe it. These words fit well. But they are not superlatives on their own. In my opinion, Monsters was truly forgettable. I can't make excuses just because of the budget, as I did not think of that at all throughout the entire movie. Monsters do not look cheap in any way. Neither are there any shortcuts in technical solutions, or anything else that I could notice. It is just a very mediocre movie with very little to say, and that is all.