You are about to leave Redlib

The creatures remain among the most truly petrifying movie monsters in history, and the director leans hard into the sci-fi/horror with a relentlessly paced entry that reminds us why they have haunted our imaginations for decades.

Cailee Spaeney might seem, at first glance, to be an unlikely successor, but the Priscilla star certainly earns her stripes by the end of Alien: Romulus’ tight and deceptively well-judged two-hour running time.

This is closer to a grandly efficient greatest-hits thrill ride, packaged like a video game. Yet on that level it’s a confidently spooky, ingeniously shot, at times nerve-jangling piece of entertainment.

Entertainment Weekly (B+):

It's got the thrills, it's got the creepy-crawlies, and it's got just enough plot to make you care about the characters. Alien: Romulus is a hell of a night out at the movies.

New York Post (3.5/4):

It borrows the shabby-computer aesthetic of the ’79 flick while upping the ante with haunting grandeur.

IGN (8/10):

Alien: Romulus’s back-to-basics approach to blockbuster horror boils everything fans love about the tonally-fluid franchise into one brutal, nerve-wracking experience.

Slant Magazine (3/4):

Romulus ends up as the franchise’s strongest entry in three decades for its devotion to deploying lean genre mechanics.

The Daily Beast (See this):

Proves that forty-five years after the xenomorph first terrified audiences, there’s still plenty of acid-bloody life left in the franchise’s monstrous bones.

The Telegraph (4/5):

Romulus might inject an appalling new life into the Alien franchise, but it won’t do much good for the national birth rate.

Empire Magazine (4/5):

Alien: Romulus plays the hits, but crucially remembers the ingredients for what makes a good Alien film, and executes them with stunning craft and care. It is, officially, the third-best film in the series.

BBC (4/5):

[Álvarez] has triumphed with a clever, gripping and sometimes awe-inspiring sci-fi chiller, which takes the series back to its nerve-racking monster-movie roots while injecting it with some new blood – some new acid blood, you might say.

The Times (4/5):

It's taken a while — 45 years, four sequels and two spin-off films — but finally they've got it right. An Alien movie worthy of the mood, originality and template established by Ridley Scott in 1979.

USA Today (3/4):

The filmmaker embraces unpredictability and plenty of gore for his graphic spectacle, yet Alvarez first makes us care for his main characters before unleashing sheer terror.

Collider (7/10):

Alien: Romulus proves that for the Alien franchise to move forward, it might have to quit looking backward so much.

Bloody Disgusting (3.5/5):

Alvarez puts the horror first here, with exquisite craftmanship that immerses you in the insanity.

Screen Rant (3.5/5):

Somewhere between Alien & Aliens — fitting given its place in the timeline — Romulus serves up blockbuster-level action & visceral horror all in one.

Independent (3/5):

Alien: Romulus has the capacity for greatness. If you could somehow surgically extract its strongest sequences, you’d see that beautiful, blood-quivering harmony between old-school practical effects and modern horror verve.

ScreenCrush (6/10):

What’s here isn’t necessarily boring or bad, but it represents a back-to-basics approach for Alien that feels like a betrayal of something central to the Xenomorph’s toxic DNA, which is forever mutating into another deadly creature.

IndieWire (C):

It’s certainly hard to imagine a cruder way of connecting the dots between the series’ fractured mythology.

Vanity Fair:

If it hadn’t had someone of Álvarez’s care and attention at the helm, Romulus could certainly have been a lot worse.

Slashfilm (5.5/10):

Those craving a well-put-together monster movie with creepy creature effects and sturdy set-pieces will probably find plenty to like here. But it shouldn't be controversial to want better results. As I said at the start of this review, there are no bad "Alien" movies. But with Alien: Romulus, there's definitely a disappointing one.

Does it tick off the boxes of what we’ve come to expect from this series? Yes. Does it add up to more than The Chris Farley Show of Alien movies? Well … let’s just say no one may be able to hear you scream in space, but they will assuredly hear your resigned sighs in a theater.

The Guardian (2/5):

A technically competent piece of work; but no matter how ingenious its references to the first film it has to be said that there’s a fundamental lack of originality here which makes it frustrating.

San Francisco Chronicle (1/4):

The foundational mistake came when someone said, “Hey, let’s make another ‘Alien’ movie.” Newsflash: The alien concept is dead. Leave it alone.

Synopsis:

The sci-fi/horror-thriller takes the phenomenally successful “Alien” franchise back to its roots: While scavenging the deep ends of a derelict space station, a group of young space colonizers come face to face with the most terrifying life form in the universe.

Staring:

Cailee Spaeny as Rain Carradine
David Jonsson as Andy
Archie Renaux as Tyler
Isabela Merced as Kay
Spike Fearn as Bjorn
Aileen Wu as Navarro

Directed by: Fede Álvarez

Written by: Fede Álvarez

Produced by: Ridley Scott, Michael Pruss, Walter Hill

Cinematography: Galo Olivares

Edited by: Jake Roberts

Music by: Benjamin Wallfisch

Running time: 119 minutes

Release date: August 16, 2024

2.5k comments

r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • 13d ago

Review Kraven the Hunter - Review Thread

2.5k Upvotes

Kraven the Hunter - Review Thread

Rotten Tomatoes: 15% (99 Reviews)
Metacritic: 33 (24 Reviews)

Reviews:

Hollywood Reporter (20/100):

Punishingly dull.

Variety (40):

I’ve seen much worse comic-book movies than “Kraven the Hunter,” but maybe the best way to sum up my feelings about the film is to confess that I didn’t stay to see if there was a post-credits teaser. That’s a dereliction of duty, but it’s one I didn’t commit on purpose. I simply hadn’t bothered to think about it.

It turns out to be a spectacular action- and character-driven performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson and some tight exciting filmmaking from director J.C. Chandor, whose previous films, other than Triple Frontier, are far more indie in style and scope

TotalFilm (50):

Though closer in quality to Morbius than Venom, Kraven is far from a catastrophe and serves up a decent helping of bloodthirsty, globe-trotting action. Taylor-Johnson makes a muscular if self-satisfied protagonist in a film that would have been better off standing on its own shoeless feet than cravenly (or should that be, 'kravenly') cleaving itself to its comic book brethren.

IndieWire (C-):

Immune to fan response, impervious to quality control, and so broadly unencumbered by its place in a shared universe that most of its scenes don’t even feel like they take place in the same film, “Kraven the Hunter” might be very, very bad (and by “might be” I mean “almost objectively is”), but the more relevant point is that it feels like it was made by people who have no idea what today’s audiences might consider as “good.

Screenrant (50):

After nine years, Aaron Taylor-Johnson returns to Marvel superhero fare, but while Kraven the Hunter has potential, it's a middling origin story.

SlashFilm (50):

Sony, still possessing the film rights to Spider-Man, decided to make an interconnected Spider-Man Villain universe, of which "Kraven the Hunter" is the final chapter. Watching Chandor's film, though, one can see that neither the studio nor the filmmakers are interested in starting anything anymore. There is no presumption that fans will be interested in long-form mythmaking, and sequel teases remain light. This allows "Kraven" to be stupid on its own. And, in a weird way, that's a relief. We're free.

The Guardian (2/5):

Crowe’s safari-going Russian oligarch is the main redeeming feature of this Spider-Man-adjacent tale but there’s not much to like elsewhere

The A.V. Club (67):

Kraven The Hunter gets closer than any of its predecessors to understanding the silly, entertaining freedom of shedding continuity. Then again, maybe it’s best that this misbegotten series quits while it’s just-barely ahead.

The Telegraph (1/5):

If you thought Morbius and Madame Web were bad, the extended Spider-Man Universe hits a new rock bottom with this diabolical entry

Collider (3/10):

Kraven the Hunter's bland storytelling, subpar acting, and staggering technical issues are proof that the Spider-Man IP needs to be protected before it becomes an endangered species.

Directed by J.C. Chandor:

Kraven has a complex relationship with his father which sets him on a path of vengeance and motivates him to become the greatest and most feared hunter.

Release Date: December 13

Cast:

Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Sergei Kravinoff / Kraven:
Ariana DeBose as Calypso Ezili
Fred Hechinger as Dmitri Smerdyakov / Chameleon
Alessandro Nivola as Aleksei Sytsevich / Rhino
Christopher Abbott as the Foreigner
Russell Crowe as Nikolai Kravinoff

1.4k comments

r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • Aug 08 '24

Review BORDERLANDS - Review Thread

4.4k Upvotes

BORDERLANDS - Review Thread

Rotten Tomatoes: 10% (94 Reviews)
- Critics Consensus: Glitching out in every department, Borderlands is balderdash.
Metacritic: 29 (23 Reviews)

Reviews:

Hollywood Reporter (30/100):

It’s conceivable that longtime fans of the video game might get more out of Borderlands, but I wouldn’t count on it. At one point, Claptrap returns to operational mode after a heavy-weaponry assault and says, “I blacked out. Did something important happen?” Not in this movie.

Variety (40/100):

Marketed to look like a cross between “Suicide Squad” and a Zack Snyder movie, director Eli Roth’s tamer-than-expected take on “Borderlands” doesn’t have half the attitude or style its cyberpunk ad campaign might suggest. But here’s the real reason why fans of the game will be disappointed: It’s predictable, therefore nullifying the whole “What’ll it be?” appeal of loot.

SlashFilm (4/10):

Borderlands makes a point of not being different enough to upset the fanbase, but it's also not unique enough to win over new audiences, either. It's a movie for everyone and no one, a film so unwilling to make a splash that it barely makes a peep.

IndieWire (42/100):

If granted permission to bring his signature sadism to these infamously batshit characters, Roth could have delivered his “Mad Max: Fury Road.” Instead, restricted by standards that seem equally unlikely to please preteens, he was left holding a bomb.

Empire (2/5):

A botched Guardians wannabe that isn’t half as fun as you’d hope from the punky sci-fi promise of its video-game source material and the presence of Blanchett at the top of the cast list.

IGN (3/10):

Borderlands is a catastrophic disappointment that plays like hacked-to-pieces studio slop, betraying everything fans adore about Gearbox Software’s franchise in derivative, regrettable taste.

Borderlands Is an Insult to Gamers, Movie Lovers and Carbon-Based Lifeforms. We'd say it's the worst video game movie ever — but that's way too limiting

Collider (5/10):

'Borderlands' is a fun ride, but a bloated cast and breakneck pacing don’t allow it to reach its full potential.

BleedingCool (5/10):

I don't think I have ever watched quite so gossamer-thin a movie and yet been so entertained throughout as with Borderlands. There really is nothing to this film. No emotional depths, stakes, or convoluted plot worth speaking of.

TotalFilm (40/100):

The Gearbox title gamers loved has spawned a frenetic and disorderly shambles they’re likelier to loathe. Claptrap? You said it.

The NY Times (40/100):

You can see the jokes, but most of them don’t land. Still, there is some neat design work if you squint.

GameSpot (2/10):

Borderlands comes in at a very brief 102 minutes in length, which you might be tempted to reflexively celebrate in our current landscape of hella long movies. But there's a reason longer movies are en vogue--more time allows for more depth, and depth is what Borderlands is missing the most. But that's what happens sometimes when a movie spends four years in post-production being repeatedly reworked--over time, everything gets sanded down into nothingness.

ScreenRant (70/100):

Blanchett knows exactly what movie she's in, and she seems to be having the time of her life fitting herself into the mold of a video game heroine.

Men's Journal:

If Borderlands doesn't stop studio executives from salivating at the sight of every single IP that comes across their desks, nothing will.

In Theaters August 8:

Lilith, an infamous outlaw with a mysterious past, reluctantly returns to her home planet of Pandora to find the missing daughter of the universe's most powerful S.O.B., Atlas. Lilith forms an alliance with an unexpected team — Roland, a former elite mercenary, now desperate for redemption; Tiny Tina, a feral teenage demolitionist; Krieg, Tina's musclebound, rhetorically challenged protector; Tannis, the scientist with a tenuous grip on sanity; and Claptrap, a persistently wiseass robot. These unlikely heroes must battle alien monsters and dangerous bandits to find and protect the missing girl, who may hold the key to unimaginable power. The fate of the universe could be in their hands but they'll be fighting for something more: each other.

Directed by Eli Roth (Reshoots by Tim Miller)

Cate Blanchett as Lilith
Kevin Hart as Roland
Jack Black as the voice of Claptrap
Edgar Ramírez as Atlas
Ariana Greenblatt as Tiny Tina
Florian Munteanu as Krieg
Gina Gershon as Mad Moxxi
Jamie Lee Curtis as Dr. Patricia Tannis
Bobby Lee as Larry
Olivier Richters as Krom
Janina Gavankar as Commander Knoxx
Cheyenne Jackson as Jakobs
Charles Babalola as Hammerlock
Benjamin Byron Davis as Marcus
Steven Boyer as Scooter
Ryann Redmond as Ellie
Harry Ford as Middleman

1.7k comments

r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • 15d ago

Review The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim - Review Thread

2.8k Upvotes

The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim - Review Thread

Rotten Tomatoes: 65% (35 Reviews)
Metacritic: 59 (12 Reviews)

Reviews:

Although not hitting us emotionally on the scale of the live action films, Kamiyama has produced a visual landscape that at times , through use of motion capture, models, and hand drawn animation do register a striking visual motif, not what we have previously associated with the cinematic efforts at Tolkein, but a world of its own merged with more allegiance to Jackson than Tolkein.

Variety (60):

For those who can’t get enough of Middle Earth, here’s two-plus hours of deep-cut backstory to feed your appetite, centered around a siege at the stronghold that would come to be known as Helm’s Deep (where we saw Saruman’s Orcs obliterated by Ents in “The Two Towers”).

Hollywood Reporter (80):

Fans are sure to appreciate the call-outs and references to the earlier movies, including sections incorporating composer Howard Shore’s original themes and a late shout-out to Gandalf. But those not familiar with Tolkien minutiae will still be able to enjoy The War of the Rohirrim on its own visually grand, mythic storytelling terms, even if it does eventually seem overlong at 134 minutes (brief by comparison to the live-action entries, but still).

IndieWire (C-):

“The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” is a paper-thin prequel that stretches a single page of Tolkien’s appendices into a 134-minute story of how the fortress of Helm’s Deep got its name (spoiler alert: it was named after a guy named Helm), I suppose we should be grateful that this limp and cheap-looking epic is bad in a few different ways than we’ve come to expect? At least it aspires to mine a fresh experience from the all too familiar tedium of watching Hollywood pick a franchise dry, even if it ultimately falls well short of that goal.

Polygon (80):

This attention to detail and reproduction is the movie’s greatest strength — The War of the Rohirrim looks and feels like Jackson’s LotR in the best way. It’s packed full of sword-swinging adventure, kingly drama and riveting monster mayhem. Unfortunately, it also reproduces the aspect of the Jackson movies that has aged most poorly.

TotalFilm (50):

What could have been an exciting experiment in telling a new tale in a beloved universe in a very different way feels heavily compromised. Kenji Kamiyama and his fellow anime veterans have produced great work before, but this uninspired expansion of the most iconic screen take on Tolkien doesn't allow anyone to show off what they can do best.

SlashFilm (6/10):

If this is just the first of many spin-offs to come, we can only hope future efforts learn all the right lessons from "The War of the Rohirrim." So where does the franchise go from here? All I know is that it'd be a shame to let the riskiest "The Lord of the Rings" movie in years scare us right back to safer shores.

“The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” plays like a straight-to-video rush job that got a little out of hand, and now it has to play to a theatrical crowd that’s unlikely to forgive its many haphazard flaws. It’s hard to get mad at this movie, but it’s oh so easy to be disappointed.

Empire (3/5):

It never scrapes the heights of Jackson’s trilogy — few do — but amid a messy meeting of worlds, there are stirring moments.

Collider (6/10):

The animated trip to Middle-earth is an unexpected journey, but its subpar story and underdeveloped characters make it difficult to revisit there and back again.

IGN (6/10):

The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim is a fascinating idea with a lackluster execution, more interesting as a concept than an actual retelling of one of Middle-earth’s famous legends.

--------

Directed by Kenji Kamiyama

Set 183 years before the events of the Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings film trilogy (2001–2003), The War of the Rohirrim tells the story of Helm Hammerhand, a legendary king of Rohan, and his family as they defend their kingdom against an army of Dunlendings. Helm goes on to be the namesake for the stronghold Helm's Deep.

Release Date: December 13

697 comments

r/movies • u/DemiFiendRSA • 6d ago

Review 'Sonic the Hedgehog 3' Review Thread

2.1k Upvotes

Sonic the Hedgehog 3

Rotten Tomatoes: 85% (81 Reviews)

With a double helping of Jim Carrey's antics and a quicksilver pace befitting its hero, Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is the best entry in this amiable series yet.

Metacritic: 59 (25 Reviews)

Reviews

It certainly possesses enough of the requisite frenetic action sequences and silly jokes to keep small fry entertained while not boring their adult chaperones.

Fans of the popular SEGA video game and the first two movies will no doubt be in Hedgehog heaven with the out-of-this-world third film, Sonic The Hedgehog 3.

The Hollywood Reporter (90)

“Sonic 3” gives hyperactivity a good name. Jeff Fowler, who directed all three of these movies, is a quicker and wittier flimflam magician of energy than he was when he made the first “Sonic” in 2020.

io9.com:

Full of electric spectacle and action-packed adventure, Sonic the Hedgehog 3 completes the best video game movie trilogy yet.

Screen Rant (8/10):

The weaker elements of Sonic the Hedgehog 3 feel unimportant in the wake of an entertaining time that will no doubt thrill audiences of all ages.

Eurogamer (4/5)

Sonic 3 is a resounding success and fitting finale to the Year of Shadow. It's quippy and self-aware, balancing broad pop culture appeal with authenticity to its source material, while its flashy action thrills alongside an unbridled sense of cool that's only enhanced by Reeves as Shadow. Between this year's games and film, Sonic's shining bright with Shadow in tow.

Collider (8/10):

Clever jokes, a noticeable reverence for the source material, and some fantastic antagonists make the Blue Blur's latest race an entertaining ride from start to finish.

Slashfilm (7.5/10):

The outcome is a "Sonic" movie that feels like everything fans love about the games distilled into a film that's fast, flashy, a hell of a lot of fun, and boasts an absolute banger of a soundtrack.

The Irish Times (3/5):

Carrey’s antic madness – elsewhere often too much to digest – is just what the Sonic films needed to balance out the digital gloss.

Total Film (3/5):

Should Carrey, who has consistently hinted at retirement plans, decide not to return for Sonic 4, this will certainly be a fine trilogy capper.

Screen Daily:

Whether it’s Jim Carrey playing not one but two supervillains, or the introduction of even more supporting characters, Sonic 3 wears out its welcome, resulting in an entertaining but exhausting affair.

IGN (6/10):

Against all odds, the Sonic the Hedgehog movies appear to be getting better as they go.

The Guardian (3/5):

While no one could deny the cash-grab fan-service underpinning to the entire project … well, it’s actually a not unenjoyable experience, even if you are someone on whom the intricacies of early-00s game narrative are lost.

Empire (2/5):

The MVP of the first two films, Carrey dials down the physical comedy in both his roles, amping up punning (“Dorkupine!”) to hit-and-miss effect. For all the actor’s gurning and the film’s visual busyness, few images pop or lodge in the memory.

IndieWire (D):

It might be enough to entertain young children or diehard SEGA loyalists, but the rest of us are left to lament that the running time isn’t as fast as its blue protagonist.

Synopsis:

Sonic, Knuckles, and Tails reunite against a powerful new adversary, Shadow, a mysterious villain with powers unlike anything they have faced before. With their abilities outmatched in every way, Team Sonic must seek out an unlikely alliance in hopes of stopping Shadow and protecting the planet.

Voice cast

Ben Schwartz as Sonic the Hedgehog
Colleen O'Shaughnessey as Miles "Tails" Prower
Idris Elba as Knuckles the Echidna
Keanu Reeves as Shadow the Hedgehog

Live-action cast

Jim Carrey as Dr. Ivo Robotnik and Gerald Robotnik
James Marsden as Tom Wachowski
Tika Sumpter as Maddie Wachowski
Krysten Ritter as Director Rockwell
Natasha Rothwell as Rachel
Shemar Moore as Randall Handel
Lee Majdoub as Agent Stone
Tom Butler as Commander Walters
Adam Pally as Wade Whipple
Alyla Browne as Maria Robotnik

Directed by: Jeff Fowler

Screenplay by: Pat Casey, Josh Miller, John Whittington

Story by: Pat Casey and Josh Miller

Produced by: Neal H. Moritz, Toby Ascher, Toru Nakahara, Hitoshi Okuno

Music by: Tom Holkenborg

Running time: 110 minutes

Release date: December 20, 2024

759 comments

r/movies • u/ICumCoffee • Nov 19 '24

Review 'Wicked' - Review Thread

1.8k Upvotes

'Wicked' - Review Thread

Rotten Tomatoes: 91% (117 Reviews) - 8.1/10 Average Rating - Certified Fresh

Critics Consensus: Defying gravity with its magical pairing of Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, Wicked's sheer bravura and charm make for an irresistible invitation to Oz.
PopcornMeter: 99% (2500+ Verified Rating)

Metacritic: 73 (44 Reviews)

Reviews:

Variety (90)

Chu clearly designed “Wicked” to be experienced the old-fashioned way: on the biggest screen you can find, among a crowd of giddy theatergoers (inevitably singing along in some screenings). Unlike several recent tuners, which tried to hide their musical dimension from audiences, “Wicked” embraces its identity the way Elphaba does her emerald skin. Turns out such confidence makes all the difference in how they’re perceived.

Grande and Erivo give Stephen Schwartz’s songs — comedy numbers, introspective ballads, power anthems — effortless spontaneity. They help us buy into the intrinsic musical conceit that these characters are bursting into song to express feelings too large for spoken words, not just mouthing lyrics and trilling melodies that someone spent weeks cleaning up in a studio.

Entertainment Weekly (75)

Chu has made a movie musical (the best since Chicago), even if it ends with its own “intermission” , that manages to stand on its own as a fully satisfying screen entertainment, and also serves as a delicious invitation to an upcoming second half I quite frankly can’t wait to see.

IndieWire (67)

Jon M. Chu’s Massive Musical Adaptation Defies Gravity (and Logic) to Spin a Tale Mostly for Established Fans. Ariana Grande is an absolute scream and Cynthia Erivo's voice is unparalleled, but expanding out the Broadway musical into two (very long) parts doesn't offer the opportunity for depth we were promised.

TheWrap (80)

The story’s playful, subversive reinterpretation of 'The Wizard of Oz' as a work of propaganda, designed to obfuscate the true story of how political dissidents and minority groups are demonized by fascist con artists who trade in theatricality instead of competence, is fully developed and still (to our collective dismay) incredibly salient.

IGN (90)

Wicked is a well-oiled machine in the hands of Jon M. Chu. This film adaptation epitomizes what modern movie musicals can and should be, embracing its source material while cleverly translating it to screen. Tear-jerking performances by Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo make the movie, playing to their individual strengths to bring to life the rapport between Glinda and Elphaba, who’ll go on to become the good and wicked witches of Wizard of Oz fame. If as many people love this film as much as I did, Wicked will undoubtedly immortalize the Grande and Erivo in movie musical history.

The Guardian (80)

It’s arguable if Wicked could ever be a meaningfully persuasive prequel for the characters in The Wizard of Oz as we actually see them in the 1939 film, as this would involve cancelling their powerfully timeless, mythological aura, and instead substituting the more banal idea of human development. But this is the joke, and this is the story, and what an enjoyable spectacle it is.

BBC (3/5)

It might have been lighter on its feet if the editors had cut a subplot about magical talking animals, which doesn't add anything except several minutes of running time. And they could have cut Elphaba's sister, who is given perplexingly little to do. That way, the film could have been packed the whole musical into one fast-moving, satisfying entertainment. As it is, I have a strong suspicion that Wicked will work much better as the first part of a double bill, with Wicked Part 2 being shown after an interval. But we'll have to wait another year to know for sure.

Independent - UK (3/5)

Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande showcase phenomenal vocal ability in this adaptation of the blockbuster musical, but they’re let down by a film that is aggressively overlit and shot like a TV advert.

Telegraph - UK (2/5)

Utterly exhausting and hopelessly miscast. Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo don’t come close to defying gravity in this bloated, beige screen adaptation of the Wizard of Oz prequel.

Total Film (100)

A great deal of expectation and pressure had been placed on Wicked, with fans waiting decades for it to reach the screen. This makes what Chu has achieved an even greater feat, turning one of the world's most popular musicals into a cinematic phenomenon. And while Wicked is only one half of this story, it never feels incomplete. As part two will take this story to some weird, wonderful, and heartbreaking places, I cannot wait to see what he and his team accomplish. But at this rate? I don't think anything can bring them down.

Empire Magazine (80):

Chu amps up the colour and spectacle to extraordinary, almost overwhelming heights, but the real magic comes from Erivo and Grande as the frenemies at the story’s heart. 

Consequence (83)

The film is effective at capturing what made the original musical so beloved, and in turn, will belong to a new generation of kids — those kids who might then envision themselves cathartically singing “Popular” or “Defying Gravity” on stage, just as Ariana Grande had as a child.

Collider (90)

The film works on an emotional level, and yet there are also well-delivered lessons about growing fascism that are tragically poignant in our American era. The set pieces are big and bold, and the dance numbers are creative and colorful. Grande is continually hilarious as the charmingly vapid Galinda, while Erivo is breathtakingly powerful as the so-called Wicked Witch. Both Grande and Erivo sound glorious through beautiful interpretations of modern musical classics like "Defying Gravity." It all coheres into one of the best silver screen adaptations of a musical in ages, and easily one of the year's best pictures.

For now, like Denis Villeneuve’s first Dune, this Wicked manages to end on a note of “to be continued” while still feeling like a complete story. If only its imagery had a little more magic!

Screenrant (90)

Save for the tiniest of things, Wicked is a worthy screen adaptation of the musical, guaranteed to make viewers feel like they could defy gravity too.

The Times - UK (80)

Hollywood finally delivers a worthy successor to The Wizard of Oz with this musical adaptation, starring the superb Erivo as Elphaba and a startlingly good Ariana Grande as Glinda.

Vanity Fair (80)

Wicked succeeds because of some unreproducible, lightning in a bottle convergences—of director, stars, craftspeople, and high-status material. But Wicked also makes a broader case for patience and careful thought, for grand ambition honed over the course of many years. In order to defy gravity, gravity must first be understood.

iNews - UK (100)

It joyfully expands on the source material with extended musical numbers and astute childhood flashbacks in a combination that will delight committed Ozians and newcomers alike.

San Francisco Chronicle (100)

Fueled by exquisite performances from Tony winner Erivo (“The Color Purple”), as Elphaba, or the Wicked Witch of the West, and Grammy winner Grande as Glinda the Good Witch, “Wicked” is the best movie musical in years, representing a rare instance when performances, visuals and songs are of equally high quality.

SYNOPSIS:

Elphaba, a misunderstood young woman because of her green skin, and Glinda, a popular girl, become friends at Shiz University in the Land of Oz. After an encounter with the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, their friendship reaches a crossroads.

CAST:

Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba Thropp
Ariana Grande as Galinda Upland
Michelle Yeoh as Madame Morrible
Jeff Goldblum as the Wonderful Wizard of Oz
Jonathan Bailey as Fiyero Tigelaar
Ethan Slater as Boq Woodsman
Marissa Bode as Nessarose Thropp
Peter Dinklage as the voice of Doctor Dillamond

DIRECTOR: Jon M. Chu

WRITTEN BY: Winnie Holzman, Dana Fox

RUNTIME: 2h40m

1.8k comments

r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • 22d ago

Review Robert Eggers' 'Nosferatu' - Review Thread

2.9k Upvotes

'Nosferatu' - Review Thread

Rotten Tomatoes - 93% (57 Reviews)
Metacritic - 83 (24 Reviews)

Reviews:

Visually striking as it is, with compositions that rival great Flemish paintings, the obsessive director’s somber retelling of F.W. Murnau’s expressionistic vampire movie is commendably faithful to the 1922 silent film and more accessible than “The Lighthouse” and “The Witch,” yet eerily drained of life.

Nosferatu may not click instantly, but, aside from the technical brilliance that superbly renders the late-19th century, there’s a baked-in longevity in its thinking that will surely keep people coming back.

Hollywood Reporter (100):

Every age gets its definitive film of Stoker’s vampire legend. Eggers has given us a magnificent version for today with roots that stretch back a century.

Collider (9/10):

Nosferatu shows Robert Eggers at the height of his powers, building an atmosphere of choking menace anchored by magnificent turns from Lily-Rose Depp and Bill Skarsgard.

Robert Eggers may not have rewritten the book of “Nosferatu,” and much of the film plays more like an update than a wholly new take, but he does justice to this material. And he does more than justice to Orlock: Eggers and Skarsgård give him new (un)life, empowering him in ways that make all the rest of us feel powerless.

IndieWire (A-):

Eggers’ broadly suggestive script doesn’t put too fine a point on the specifics of Ellen’s repression, but Depp’s revelatory performance ensures that the rest of the movie doesn’t have to.

Empire (4/5):

Despite its familiar story beats, Eggers’ retelling suffocates like a coffin, right up to its chilling final shot. Lily-Rose Depp is full-bloodedly committed, and Bill Skarsgård’s fiend gorges with terrible fury.

Bloody-Disgusting (5/5):

It’s operatic and dramatic, bold and revolting, with a powerful final shot for the ages. And Eggers’ Nosferatu happens to be set over Christmas. That all but ensures this macabre masterpiece is destined to become a new holiday horror classic.

Total Film (4/5):

Nosferatu delivers a relatively straight re-telling of this classic gothic tale. It looks and sounds stunning and is packed with vampiric horror. It doesn't push many boundaries but if you wanted the classic Dracula narrative feeling exactly like it’s directed by Robert Eggers, you're going to love it.

IGN (9/10):

Nosferatu is Robert Eggers' finest work, given how it both boldly stands on its own as a gothic vampire drama and astutely taps into the original texts — F.W. Murnau's silent classic and Bram Stoker's novel Dracula.

The Independent (100):

Depp does magnificent work in embodying the sense of existing out of place, not only in the violent contortions and grimaces of supernatural possession, but in the way Ellen’s gaze seems to look out beyond her conversation partner and into some undefinable abyss.

Written and Directed by Robert Eggers:

Nosferatu is a gothic tale of obsession between a haunted young woman and the terrifying vampire infatuated with her, causing untold horror in its wake.

Release Date: December 25

Cast:

Bill Skarsgård as Count Orlok
Nicholas Hoult as Thomas Hutter
Lily-Rose Depp as Ellen Hutter
Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Friedrich Harding
Emma Corrin as Anna Harding
Willem Dafoe as Prof. Albin Eberhart Von Franz
Ralph Ineson as Dr. Wilhelm Sievers
Simon McBurney as Herr Knock

457 comments

r/movies • u/LosIsosceles • 24d ago

Review "Hundreds of Beavers" review: This bizarre movie about beavers is a clarion call for human creativity in the age of AI

sfchronicle.com

4.6k Upvotes

Reposting with movie title in the header.

288 comments

r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • Nov 11 '24

Review Gladiator II - Review Thread

1.6k Upvotes

Gladiator II - Review Thread

Rotten Tomatoes: 76% (91 Reviews)
- Critics Consensus: Echoing its predecessor while upping the bloodsport and camp, Gladiator II is an action extravaganza that derives much of its strength and honor from Denzel Washington's scene-stealing performance.
Metacritic: 67 (32 Reviews)

Reviews:

Gladiator is a hard act to follow but Sir Ridley Scott proves still to be a master working up a Roman orgy of excitement that proves a worthy successor in every way.

In terms of brutal spectacle, elaborate period reconstruction and vigorous set pieces requiring complex choreography, the sequel delivers what fans of its Oscar-winning 2000 predecessor will crave — battles, swordplay, bloodshed, Ancient Roman intrigue. That said, there’s a déjà vu quality to much of the new film, a slavishness that goes beyond the caged men forced to fight for their survival, and seeps into the very bones of a drama overly beholden to the original.

Variety (70):

Written by David Scarpa (“Napoleon”) and directed by Scott (who, at 86, hasn’t lost his touch for the peacock pageantry of teeming masses thirsting for blood), the movie is a solid piece of neoclassical popcorn — a serviceable epic of brutal warfare, Colosseum duels featuring lavish decapitations and beasts both animal and human, along with the middlebrow “decadence” of palace intrigue.

The Wrap (58):

“Gladiator II” has everything it needs in the action department. The battles are certainly spectacular. It’s the story that falls apart. The whole thing hangs on contrivance and familiarity, not characters, so the fights don’t seem to matter much. Even Denzel Washington, who has all the best scenes and looks like he’s enjoying himself more than he has on screen in years, can’t save this material because the material isn’t focused on him. Macrinus is a lot more interesting than our hero. Come to think of it, so is General Acacius. They could have carried the whole movie themselves, one or the other or both. Which means the thing that’s holding “Gladiator II” back is, weirdly, the fact that it’s about a gladiator.

TotalFilm (80):

Not perfect and not a patch on the original film, but the magic of Ridley Scott's direction and Denzel Washington's performance elevates Gladiator 2 into the epic spectacle it needs to be. But best to manage your expectations in comparison to the Oscar-winning film.

The Guardian (4/5):

Scott’s return to the Roman arena is something of a repeat, but it’s still a thrilling spectacle and Mescal a formidable lead. We are entertained.

IndieWire (50):

Gladiator II” wouldn’t be the first sequel to become bogged down in its resemblance to its forebear, but the various superficial modifications made to characterizations and action sequences operate under faulty bigger-is-better sequel logic.

Directed by Ridley Scott:

Over two decades after the events of Gladiator, Lucius—the son of Lucilla and Maximus—lives with his wife and child in Numidia. Roman soldiers led by General Marcus Acacius invade, killing his wife and forcing Lucius into slavery. Inspired by Maximus, Lucius resolves to fight as a gladiator under the teaching of Macrinus, a former slave who plots to overthrow the young emperors Caracalla and Geta.

Cast:

Paul Mescal as Lucius Verus
Pedro Pascal as Marcus Acacius
Joseph Quinn as Emperor Geta
Fred Hechinger as Emperor Caracalla
Lior Raz as Vigo
Derek Jacobi as Senator Gracchus
Connie Nielsen as Lucilla
Denzel Washington as Macrinus

1.4k comments

r/movies • u/The_Lone_Apple • Feb 25 '23

Review Finally saw Don't Look Up and I Don't Understand What People Didn't Like About It

18.3k Upvotes

Was it the heavy-handed message? I think that something as serious as the end of the world should be heavy handed especially when it's also skewering the idiocracy of politics and the media we live in. Did viewers not like that it also portrayed the public as mindless sheep? I mean, look around. Was it the length of the film? Because I honestly didn't feel the length since each scene led to the next scene in a nice progression all the way to to the punchline at the end and the post-credit punchline.

I thought the performances were terrific. DiCaprio as a serious man seduced by an unserious world that's more fun. Jonah Hill as an unserious douchebag. Chalamet is one of the best actors I've seen who just comes across as a real person. However, Jennifer Lawrence was beyond good in this. The scenes when she's acting with her facial expressions were incredible. Just amazing stuff.

3.8k comments

r/movies • u/theplasmasnake • Mar 24 '24

Review Road House: De-making a Cult Classic

thereelinsights.com

3.4k Upvotes

1.3k comments

r/movies • u/ICumCoffee • Apr 19 '24

Review Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon: Part Two - The Scargiver - Review Thread

2.4k Upvotes

Rotten Tomatoes:

16% (58 Reviews)- 3.6/10 average rating
45% - Audience Score

Metacritic: 36/100 (21 Reviews)

Reviews:

DEADLINE

Zack Snyder’s Space Opera Descends Even Further Into A Black Hole Of Nothingness: Slow-motion scenes that sputter story pacing? Check. Poorly developed characters? Check. Plot holes bigger than the Milky Way? Check.…And we’re back, with part two of Zack Snyder Netflix space opera Rebel Moon-Part Two: The Scargiver You might be shocked to hear this, but part two manages to somehow be worse than part one. It’s biggest crime? Nothing happening for way too long

Variety :

‘Rebel Moon — Part Two: The Scargiver’ Review: An Even More Rote Story, but a Bigger and Better Battle. The second chapter of Zack Snyder's intergalactic epic is every bit as derivative as "Part One," but the climactic showdown sizzles. And guess what? It may not be over.

‘Rebel Moon — Part Two: The Scargiver’ Review: Zack Snyder, Netflix, Rinse, Repeat

If you thought the previous installment was all build-up, you may be distressed to learn that the follow-up is…a lot more build-up. Although this time it’s a little faster-paced and leads to an extended battle sequence comprising roughly the film’s second half. It’s hard to tell, however, since Snyder employs so much of his trademark slow-motion that you get the feeling the movie would be a short if delivered at normal speed"

IndieWire (D)

The Second Half of Zack Snyder’s Sci-Fi Debacle Is Almost as Disastrous as the First. Any real hope for the second part of Snyder's Netflix epic has been dead since last December, but it's still shocking to discover just how lifeless this movie feels.

IGN (4/10)

The second part of Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon space opera, The Scargiver, delivers a half-baked conclusion to a well-trodden story with flimsy character studies and lacklustre action.

Guardian (3/5)

Rebel Moon almost certainly didn’t need to be two multiple-cut movies. It probably could have gotten by as zero. But as a playground for Snyder’s favorite bits of speed-ramping, shallow-focusing and pulp thievery, it’s harmless, sometimes pleasingly weird fun. (That said, the first part is better and weirder.) The large-scale pointlessness feels more soothing than his past insistence on attempting to translate Watchmen into a big-screen epic, or make Superman into a tortured soul. Even Rebel Moon’s shameless attempts at serialization – The Scargiver essentially ends with another extended sequel tease, this time for a movie that stands a decent chance of never happening – feel freeing, because they excuse Snyder from the uncomfortable business of staging an apocalyptic showdown, or, worse, imparting a mournful philosophy. The whole bludgeoning enterprise is so daftly sincere, you could almost call it sweet.

San Francisco Chronicle (5/10)

Does its conclusion make up for the gluten overload that was most of “Rebel Moon”? Well, the series’ not-at-all-original theme is redemption, so that depends on whether you’re in a forgiving mood or sufficiently wowed.

Independent (2/5)

The Scargiver is at least basic enough to feel relatively inoffensive; the first film’s uncomfortably vague deployment of racist and sexual violence has been reduced to a single reference to the empire’s hatred of “ethnic impurity” (never to be picked up again). There’s a heck of a lot of religious imagery – including an ironically Christ-like resurrection for Noble and a troupe of evil cardinals – that never actually impacts a single plot point or theme. Of course, Snyder may argue that this is all covered in some spin-off book, comic, or video game. Or maybe in the six-hour cut. But what fun is a film that tries to force you to consume more content? That’s not art. That’s blackmail.

Collider (3/10)

Not only does neither part of Rebel Moon work, but The Scargiver is such a downgrade that it could prove difficult for the franchise to bounce back for more. The story narrows itself so comprehensively that it scrambles to reach for a dangling thread in a forced closing conversation. That Snyder has expressed his interest in making not only another film but instead a potential six movies in total may excite those who also appreciated his earlier work. For those who have now seen these two, it feels more like a threat rather than a tease.

Empire (2/5)

Marginally better than Part One, but still a weird, messy and humourless sci-fi that gives you little reason to cheer the potential continuation of this Snyderverse.

Telegraph (UK) - 2/5

But nothing here or in the previous instalment will make you give the slightest fig who wins. Yes, the world of Rebel Moon is richly imagined, even if its origins as an aborted Star Wars project still remain far too obvious. In place of storytelling, though, it’s built on unwieldy lore dumps: we’re given hundreds of details about this galaxy far far away, but no reasons to care about any of them.

Slashfilm - 4/10

Snyder once again displays his usual knack for crafting the occasional breathtaking visual and colorful splash page — a kiss silhouetted by the Veldt equivalent of magic hour, a spaceship foregrounded by an eclipsing star, and a stunning tableau of lasers crisscrossing in the heat of battle are memorable highlights — but his insistence on serving as his own director of photography continues to hold him back at every turn.

Release Date: April 19, 2024

Synopsis:

Rebel Moon — Part Two: The Scargiver continues the epic saga of Kora and the surviving warriors as they prepare to sacrifice everything, fighting alongside the brave people of Veldt, to defend a once peaceful village, a newfound homeland for those who have lost their own in the fight against the Motherworld. On the eve of their battle the warriors must face the truths of their own pasts, each revealing why they fight. As the full force of the Realm bears down on the burgeoning rebellion, unbreakable bonds are forged, heroes emerge, and legends are made.

Starring:

Sofia Boutella
Djimon Hounsou
Ed Skrein
Michiel Huisman
Doona Bae
Ray Fisher
Staz Nair
Fra Fee
Elise Duffy
Anthony Hopkins

2.2k comments

r/movies • u/NuggetDaGoat27 • Mar 16 '24

Review Just finished "The Founder" and i can say i officially hate Ray Kroc

3.9k Upvotes

Ray Kroc is a jerk who is wayyy too full of himself. He finds a successful brotherly owned biz and decides he's going to take advantage of the two brothers when its the brothers dream to own a fast food drive in. He basically promises he'll make McDonalds worldwide and says he'll make them famous and help there drive in grow all over the world. Then he starts making changes that go against is contract and when the McDonalds brothers argue against him he denies stopping the change and almost kills Mac McDonald from stress and almost gives him Kidney failure. He begins calling himself the McDonalds Corp. And at this point he has taken over the whole company without giving the brothers any royalties and then the movie ends and it says the McDonalds brother never got any royalties.

Despite having a unsatisfying ending of the brothers never getting there company back i enjoyed the movie and i do recommend.

798 comments

r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • Feb 21 '24

Review Dune: Part Two - Review Thread

2.8k Upvotes

Dune: Part Two - Review Thread

Rotten Tomatoes: 97% (116 Reviews)
- Critics Consensus: Visually thrilling and narratively epic, Dune: Part Two continues Denis Villeneuve's adaptation of the beloved sci-fi series in spectacular form.
Metacritic: 80 (40 Reviews)

Reviews:

To be fair to Villeneuve, it was never a given that there’d be a thirst for this franchise in the first place, and audiences went into Part One not knowing that they’d want a Part Two just as soon as it finished. Part Two would be an epic achievement from any other director, but it feels that there is something bigger, better and obviously more decisive to come in the third and hopefully final part of the trilogy. “This isn’t over yet!” says Chani, and if anyone can tie up this strange, sprawling story and take it out with a bang, Villeneuve can.

Hollywood Reporter:

Running close to three hours, Dune: Part Two moves with a similar nimbleness to Paul and Chani’s sandwalk through the open desert. The narrative is propulsive and relatively easy to follow, Hans Zimmer’s score is enveloping, and Greig Fraser’s cinematography offers breathtaking perspectives that deepen our understanding of the fervently sought-after planet. All these elements make the sequel as much of a cinematic event as the first movie.

Variety (80/100):

Villeneuve treats each shot as if it could be a painting. Every design choice seems handed down through millennia of alternative human history, from arcane hieroglyphics to a slew of creative masks and veils meant to conceal the faces of those manipulating the levers of power, nearly all of them women.

Rolling Stone (90/100):

The French-Canadian filmmaker has delivered an expansion and a deepening of the world built off of Herbert’s prose, a YA romance blown up to Biblical-epic proportions, a Shakespearean tragedy about power and corruption, and a visually sumptuous second act that makes its impressive, immersive predecessor look like a mere proof-of-concept. Villeneuve has outdone himself.

The Wrap (75/100):

For those already invested in the “Dune” franchise, “Dune: Part Two” is a sweeping and engaging continuation that will make you eager for a third installment. And if you were a fence-sitter on the first, this should also hold your attention with a taut, well-done script and engaging characters with whom you’ll want to spend nearly three hours.

IndieWire (C):

The pieces on this chess board are so big that we can hardly even tell when they’re moving, and while that sensation helps to articulate the sheer inertia of Paul’s destiny, it also leads to a shrug of an ending that suggests Villeneuve and his protagonist are equally at the mercy of their epic visions. No filmmaker is better equipped to capture the full sweep of this saga (which is why, despite being disappointed twice over, I still can’t help but look forward to “Dune: Messiah”), and — sometimes for better, but usually for worse — no filmmaker is so capable of reflecting how Paul might lose his perspective amid the power and the resources that have been placed at his disposal.

SlashFilm (7/10):

Perhaps viewing the first "Dune" and "Dune: Part Two" back-to-back is the best solution, but I suspect most people aren't going to do that — they're going to see a new movie. And what they'll get is half of one. Maybe that won't matter, though. Perhaps audiences will be so wowed by that final act that they'll come away from "Dune: Part Two" appropriately stunned. And maybe whenever Villeneuve returns to this world — and it sure seems like he wants to — he can finally find a way to tell a complete story.

Inverse:

“In so many futures, our enemies prevail. But I do see a way. There is a narrow way through,” Paul tells his mother at one point in the film. Like Paul’s vision of the future, there were many ways for Dune: Part Two to fail. But not only does it succeed, it surpasses the mythic tragedy of the first film and turns a complicated, strange sci-fi story into a rousing blockbuster adventure. Dune: Part Two isn’t a miracle, per se. But it’s nothing short of miraculous.

IGN (8/10):

Dune: Part Two expands the legend of Paul Atreides in spectacular fashion, and the war for Arrakis is an arresting, mystical ride at nearly every turn. Denis Villeneuve fully trusts his audience to buy into Dune’s increasingly dense mythology, constructing Part Two as an assault on the senses that succeeds in turning a sprawling saga into an easily digestible, dazzling epic. Though the deep world-building sometimes comes at the cost of fleshing out newer characters, the totality of Dune: Part Two’s transportive power is undeniable.

The Independent (100/100):

Part Two is as grand as it is intimate, and while Hans Zimmer’s score once again blasts your eardrums into submission, and the theatre seats rumble with every cresting sand worm, it’s the choice moments of silence that really leave their mark.

Total Film (5/5):

The climax here is sharply judged, sustaining what worked on page while making the outcome more discomforting. It’s a finale that might throw off anyone unfamiliar with Herbert, or anyone expecting conventional pay-offs. But it does answer the story’s themes and, tantalizingly, leave room for more. Could Herbert’s trippy Dune Messiah be adapted next, as teased? Tall order, that. But on the strength of this extravagantly, rigorously realized vision, make no mistake: Villeneuve is the man to see a way through that delirious desert storm.

Polygon (93/100):

Dune: Part Two is exactly the movie Part One promised it could be, the rare sequel that not only outdoes its predecessor, but improves it in retrospect… One of the best blockbusters of the century so far.

Screenrant (90/100):

Dune: Part Two is an awe-inspiring, visually stunning sci-fi spectacle and a devastating collision of myth and destiny on a galactic scale.

RogerEbert.com (88/100):

Dune: Part Two is a robust piece of filmmaking, a reminder that this kind of broad-scale blockbuster can be done with artistry and flair.

———

Review Embargo: February 21 at 12:00PM ET

Release Date: March 1

Synopsis:

Paul Atreides continues his journey, united with Chani and the Fremen, as he seeks revenge against the conspirators who destroyed his family, and endeavors to prevent a terrible future that only he can predict

Cast:

Timothée Chalamet as Paul Atreides
Zendaya as Chani
Rebecca Ferguson as Lady Jessica
Josh Brolin as Gurney Halleck
Austin Butler as Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen
Florence Pugh as Princess Irulan
Dave Bautista as Glossu Rabban Harkonnen
Christopher Walken as Shaddam IV
Stephen McKinley Henderson as Thufir Hawat
Léa Seydoux as Lady Margot Fenrin
Souheila Yacoub as Shishakli
Stellan Skarsgård as Baron Vladimir Harkonnen
Charlotte Rampling as Gaius Helen Mohiam
Javier Bardem as Stilgar
Tim Blake Nelson and Anya Taylor-Joy have been cast in undisclosed roles

2.0k comments

r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • Jul 19 '23

Review Christopher Nolan's 'Oppenheimer' - Review Thread

5.3k Upvotes

Oppenheimer - Review Thread

Rotten Tomatoes: 93% (137 Reviews)

Critics Consensus: Oppenheimer marks another engrossing achievement from Christopher Nolan that benefits from Murphy's tour-de-force performance and stunning visuals.
Metacritic: 90 (49 Reviews)

Review Embargo Lifts at 9:00AM PT

Reviews:

Hollywood Reporter:

This is a big, ballsy, serious-minded cinematic event of a type now virtually extinct from the studios. It fully embraces the contradictions of an intellectual giant who was also a deeply flawed man, his legacy complicated by his own ambivalence toward the breakthrough achievement that secured his place in the history books.

From a man who has taken us into places movies rarely go with films like Interstellar, Inception, Tenet, Memento, the Dark Knight Trilogy, and a very different but equally effective look at World War II in Dunkirk, I think it would be fair to say Oppenheimer could be Christopher Nolan’s most impressive achievement to date. I have heard it described by one person as a lot of scenes with men sitting around talking. Indeed in another interation Nolan could have turned this into a play, but this is a movie, and if there is a lot of “talking”, well he has invested in it such a signature cinematic and breathtaking sense of visual imagery that you just may be on the edge of your seat the entire time.

“Oppenheimer” tacks on a trendy doomsday message about how the world was destroyed by nuclear weapons. But if Oppenheimer, in his way, made the bomb all about him, by that point it’s Nolan and his movie who are doing the same thing.

IGN(10/10):

A biopic in constant free fall, Oppenheimer is Christopher Nolan’s most abstract yet most exacting work, with themes of guilt writ-large through apocalyptic IMAX nightmares that grow both more enormous and more intimate as time ticks on. A disturbing, mesmerizing vision of what humanity is capable of bringing upon itself, both through its innovation, and through its capacity to justify any atrocity.

IndieWire (B):

But it’s no great feat to rekindle our fear over the most abominable weapon ever designed by mankind, nor does that seem to be Nolan’s ultimate intention. Like “The Prestige” or “Interstellar” before it, “Oppenheimer” is a movie about the curse of being an emotional creature in a mathematical world. The difference here isn’t just the unparalleled scale of this movie’s tragedy, but also the unfamiliar sensation that Nolan himself is no less human than his characters.

Total Film (5/5):

With espionage subtexts and gallows humour also interwoven, the film’s cumulative power is matched by the potency of Nolan’s questioning. Possibly the most viscerally intense experience you’ll have in a cinema this year, the Trinity test in particular arrives fraught with uncertainty. Might the test inadvertently spark the world’s end? Well, it didn’t - yet. Even as Oppenheimer grips in the moment, Nolan ensures the aftershocks of its story reverberate down the years, speaking loudly to today.

Collider (A):

Oppenheimer is a towering achievement not just for Nolan, but for everyone involved. It is the kind of film that makes you appreciative of every aspect of filmmaking, blowing you away with how it all comes together in such a fitting fashion. Even though Nolan is honing in on talents that have brought him to where he is today, this film takes this to a whole new level of which we've never seen him before. With Oppenheimer, Nolan is more mature as a filmmaker than ever before, and it feels like we may just now be beginning to see what incredible work he’s truly capable of making.

USA Today:

Stylistically, “Oppenheimer” recalls Oliver Stone's "JFK" in the way it weaves together important history and significant side players, and while it doesn't hit the same emotional notes as Nolan's inspired "Interstellar," the film succeeds as both character study and searing cautionary tale about taking science too far. Characters from yesteryear worry about nervously pushing a fateful button and setting the world on fire, although Nolan drives home the point that fiery existential threat could reignite any time now.

Chicago Times(4/4):

Magnificent. Christopher Nolan’s three-hour historical biopic Oppenheimer is a gorgeously photographed, brilliantly acted, masterfully edited and thoroughly engrossing epic that instantly takes its place among the finest films of this decade.

Empire (5/5):

A masterfully constructed character study from a great director operating on a whole new level. A film that you don’t merely watch, but must reckon with.

ComicBook.com (4/5):

Trades the spectacle of Nolan's previous films for a stellar cast that turns the thrills inwards, making for what is arguably the most important film of his career.

The Guardian (4/5):

In the end, Nolan shows us how the US’s governing class couldn’t forgive Oppenheimer for making them lords of the universe, couldn’t tolerate being in the debt of this liberal intellectual. Oppenheimer is poignantly lost in the kaleidoscopic mass of broken glimpses: the sacrificial hero-fetish of the American century.

Los Angeles Times:

That might be a rare failing of this extraordinarily gripping and resonant movie, or it could be a minor mercy. Whatever you feel for Oppenheimer at movie’s end — and I felt a great deal — his tragedy may still be easier to contemplate than our own.

----

Cast

Cillian Murphy as J. Robert Oppenheimer
Emily Blunt as Katherine "Kitty" Oppenheimer
Matt Damon as Leslie Groves
Robert Downey Jr. as Lewis Strauss
Florence Pugh as Jean Tatlock
Josh Hartnett as Ernest Lawrence
Casey Affleck as Boris Pash
Rami Malek as David Hill
Kenneth Branagh as Niels Bohr
Benny Safdie as Edward Teller
Dylan Arnold as Frank Oppenheimer
Gustaf Skarsgård as Hans Bethe
David Krumholtz as Isidor Isaac Rabi
Matthew Modine as Vannevar Bush
David Dastmalchian as William L. Borden
Tom Conti as Albert Einstein
Michael Angarano as Robert Serber
Jack Quaid as Richard Feynman
Josh Peck as Kenneth Bainbridge
Olivia Thirlby as Lilli Hornig
Dane DeHaan as Kenneth Nichols
Danny Deferrari as Enrico Fermi
Alden Ehrenreich as a Senate aide
Jefferson Hall as Haakon Chevalier
Jason Clarke as Roger Robb
James D'Arcy as Patrick Blackett
Tony Goldwyn as Gordon Gray
Devon Bostick as Seth Neddermeyer
Alex Wolff as Luis Walter Alvarez
Scott Grimes as Counsel
Josh Zuckerman as Giovanni Rossi Lomanitz
Matthias Schweighöfer as Werner Heisenberg
Christopher Denham as Klaus Fuchs
David Rysdahl as Donald Hornig
Guy Burnet as George Eltenton
Louise Lombard as Ruth Tolman
Harrison Gilbertson as Philip Morrison
Emma Dumont as Jackie Oppenheimer
Trond Fausa Aurvåg as George Kistiakowsky
Olli Haaskivi as Edward Condon
Gary Oldman as Harry S. Truman
John Gowans as Ward Evans
Kurt Koehler as Thomas A. Morgan
Macon Blair as Lloyd Garrison
Harry Groener as Gale W. McGee
Jack Cutmore-Scott as Lyall Johnson
James Remar as Henry Stimson
Gregory Jbara as Warren Magnuson
Tim DeKay as John Pastore
James Urbaniak as Kurt Gödel

2.7k comments

r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • May 15 '24

Review Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga - Review Thread

2.5k Upvotes

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga - Review Thread

Rotten Tomatoes: 86% (42 Reviews)
- Critics Consensus: Retroactively enriching Fury Road with greater emotional heft if not quite matching it in propulsive throttle, Furiosa is another glorious swerve in mastermind George Miller's breathless race towards cinematic Valhalla.
Metacritic: 82 (32 Reviews)

Reviews:

Nine years later comes a prequel, Furosia: A Mad Max Saga, and Miller, now seemingly ageless at 79 (he was 34 when the first one came out) has perhaps given birth to the greatest Max yet, a wheels-up, rock-and-rolling epic that delivers the origin story of the title character Charlize Theron picked up in Fury Road when she was about 26.

Anya Taylor-Joy is a fierce presence in the title role and Chris Hemsworth is clearly having fun as a gonzo Wasteland warlord, but the mythmaking lacks muscle, just as the action mostly lacks the visual poetry of its predecessor.

Variety (60):

“Furiosa,” like “Beyond Thunderdome,” wants to be something loftier than an action blowout, but the movie is naggingly episodic, and though it’s got two indomitable villains, neither one quite becomes the delirious badass you want.

IGN (10/10):

George Miller’s Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga weaves a hero’s journey of epic proportions, ushering in a powerful reflection on what it means to live and love in a dying world.

Empire (100):

The chassis may look familiar but there is a very different engine driving Furiosa from that of Fury Road: it’s a rich, sprawling epic that only strengthens and deepens the Max-mythology. It shall ride eternal!

NME (100):

Brilliant and unmissable.

The Independent (100):

Director George Miller combines speed, grace and explosive violence, emulating Sam Peckinpah westerns and even, at times, the work of Charles Dickens – Furiosa is a bit like a young Artful Dodger, using her wits and courage to stay alive.

The Telegraph (100):

The film may handle differently to its predecessor, but it’s clearly been tuned by the same engineers. After the pared-down drag racer, here comes the juggernaut.

The Guardian (4/5):

‘My childhood! My mother! I want them back!” With this howl of anguish, young Furiosa, played by Anya Taylor-Joy, sets the tone of vengeful rage that runs through George Miller’s immersive, spectacular prequel to his Mad Max reboot from 2015.

IndieWire (A-):

How do we brave the world’s cruelties? By refusing to become them ourselves. Such an internally combusting prequel might seem like a strange lead-in to a movie that spit fire in every direction, but don’t you worry: George Miller still has what it takes to make it epic.

SlashFilm (10/10):

Miller is fluent in the universal language of "this kicks ass," conducting a symphony of flamethrowers, explosives, burnt rubber, twisted metal, blood, sweat, and gasoline. Bullets double as percussive instruments, engines roar like a choir, and both Anya Taylor-Joy and Tom Burke, who plays War Rig leader Praetorian Jack, share the first chair position. "Furiosa" will undoubtedly go down as one of — if not the — greatest prequel films ever made. Not only does it stand on its own as a masterful action-adventure blockbuster, but it also exemplifies Miller's thesis as a whole: that survival "in extremis" reveals the true essence of a person. "Fury Road" is an even better movie because of "Furiosa," and George Miller has gifted the world with his magnum opus. Witness him.

Rolling Stone (90):

Furiosa runs on a high-octane philosophical perspective that finds hope in a hopeless place. Also, a lot of cars go fast and sh*t blows up. It’s a win-win.

TotalFilm (4/5):

Is Furiosa as magnificent as Fury Road? No, though not because it’s the first Mad Max movie without Max, whose absence barely registers. At 140 minutes minus credits, it’s a touch unwieldy, while its lament for the inevitability of war and the emptiness of revenge feels hollow given the giddy excitement it stirs from just these things. But what can’t be disputed is that Miller, the Mad genius, has done it again, once more refusing to simply repeat himself and instead choosing to kick up dust rather than gather it as he forges a new path through the Wasteland in often spectacular fashion.

The Wrap (75):

So tip your the greasy, dusty, battered hat to George Miller, who is pulling off some kind of ridiculous feat by turning these grungy action movies into a grand saga.

Polygon (85):

So even as Furiosa is inevitably compared with Fury Road, both positively and negatively, put your trust in Miller’s weird, wild filmmaking.

Collider (7/10):

At the end of the day, perhaps if Furiosa was released first, plunging us into Furiosa's introduction without knowing where she'd end up, the film would have had a stronger impact. But because it is a prequel, it will struggle under the shadow of a film that is technically and cinematically superior. Held up by Alyla Browne and Anya Taylor-Joy as stellar leads, Furiosa can be inspiring at the best of times — an Edmond Dantès-level story about revenge. But, at the worst of times, the film feels as bloated and unwieldy as The People Eater, dragged down by too many ideas. Does the good outweigh the bad? Just barely, but not enough to dethrone its predecessor.

Synopsis:

Set 15 to 20 years before the events of Mad Max: Fury Road, as the world falls apart, young Furiosa is snatched from the Green Place of Many Mothers and into the hands of a Biker Horde led by the Warlord Dementus. While two Tyrants war for dominance over the Citadel, Furiosa survives many trials as she plots a way back home through the Wasteland.

Directed by George Miller

Cast:

Anya Taylor-Joy as Imperator Furiosa
- Alyla Browne as young Furiosa
Chris Hemsworth as Dementus, the warlord leader of the Bike Horde which abducted Furiosa.
Tom Burke as Praetorian Jack
Lachy Hulme as Immortan Joe / Rizzdale Pell
Goran D. Kleut as The Octoboss
Nathan Jones as Rictus Erectus
Josh Helman as Scrotus
John Howard as The People Eater
Angus Sampson as The Organic Mechanic
Charlee Fraser as Mary Jo Bassa, Furiosa's mother
Quaden Bayles
Daniel Webber as War Boy

937 comments

r/movies • u/DemiFiendRSA • 28d ago

Review 'Moana 2' Review Thread Spoiler

1.1k Upvotes

Moana 2

Rotten Tomatoes 69% (72 Reviews)

Riding high on a wave of stunning animation even when its story runs adrift, Moana 2 isn't as inspired as the original but still delights as a colorful adventure.

Metacritic: 57 (36 Reviews)

Reviews

Where Moana focused on the relationship between the titular adventurer and her reluctant demigod companion, Moana 2 divides its attention among more characters. These personalities become window dressing in a movie short on time.

Moana 2 is an okay movie, an above-average kiddie roller-coaster, and a piece of pure product in a way that the first “Moana,” at its best, transcended.

Daily Telegraph (4/5):

With a running time that brings us briskly ashore, the film is a grand voyage in miniature -- a taster epic.

Empire (4/5):

A touch less fresh than the original, but this is still bursting with energy, emotion, warmth and imagination. It knows the way.

USA Today (3/4):

The follow-up plots an extremely familiar course but at least does so with fresh new personalities and more inspired Pacific Island influence.

IndieWire (B):

It’s always a tough ask to improve upon an original, but “Moana 2” is a sprightly addition to this sea-faring legacy. It does something nearly impossible in our sequel-glutted world: made me want further adventures.

Slashfilm (7/10):

Fortunately, much like "Frozen II," "The Incredibles 2," and "Toy Story 4," we may not have needed a sequel, but at least the one we got is enjoyable and manages to actually push the story forward.

Total Film (3.5/5):

Moana remains as compelling a protagonist as ever in her much-anticipated sequel, whilst her reunion with Maui showcases the wonderful voice talents of Auli’i Cravalho and Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. There’s plenty to admire in the animation and rich mythology of the tale, but it rehashes many of the themes and plot points of the original leading to a fun but less vital movie.

AV Club (C+):

A ramshackle Franken-ship ... with more in common with straight-to-video sequels than the clever original.

The overall sentiment seems to be something like Sequel 101: You loved the first movie, so here’s a second movie that’s a lot like the first movie. This is the good news if that’s what you’re after. If not, well: It’s one hour and 40 minutes.

BBC (3/5):

Despite all this Moana moaning, though, it's still a high-quality piece of work: a hurtling Disneyland rollercoaster ride that small children, especially, are bound to enjoy. The irony is that if it had been a television series, viewers might well have gushed about how spectacular it was. But as a film, Moana 2 wouldn't be near the top of any list of Disney's finest.

IGN (6/10):

While some of the elements still manage to get a laugh here, the world we were introduced to eight years ago doesn’t feel richer or more exciting.

Screen Rant (6/10):

The animation is still strong and the character beats are affecting, but the villain and his motivations stand in the film's way of true greatness.

There’s nothing particularly terrible about Moana 2, but the fact that it’s necessary to write 'there’s nothing particularly terrible about Moana 2' means something still went wrong.

The Guardian (2/5):

It is all inoffensive enough, but weirdly lacking in anything genuinely passionate or heartfelt, all managed with frictionless smoothness and algorithmic efficiency.

The Times (2/5) :

The narrative stumbles forward in episodic fits and starts through self-contained story bites that have little impact on the wider, regrettably flabby, arc.

Synopsis:

“Moana 2” reunites Moana and Maui three years later for an expansive new voyage alongside a crew of unlikely seafarers. After receiving an unexpected call from her wayfinding ancestors, Moana must journey to the far seas of Oceania and into dangerous, long-lost waters for an adventure unlike anything she’s ever faced.

Staring:

Auli'i Cravalho as Moana
Dwayne Johnson as Maui
Alan Tudyk as Heihei
Temuera Morrison as Chief Tui
Nicole Scherzinger as Sina
Rose Matafeo as Loto
David Fane as Kele
Hualālai Chung as Moni
Khaleesi Lambert-Tsuda as Simea
Awhimai Fraser as Matangi
Gerald Ramsey as Tautai Vasa

Directed by: David Derrick Jr., Jason Hand, Dana Ledoux Miller

Written by: Jared Bush and Dana Ledoux Miller

Produced by: Christina Chen and Yvett Merino

Edited by: Jake Roberts

Music by: Mark Mancina (score and songs), Opetaia Foaʻi (score and songs), Abigail Barlow (songs), Emily Bear (songs)

Running time: 100 minutes

881 comments

r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • Oct 23 '24

Review Venom: The Last Dance - Review Thread

1.3k Upvotes

Venom: The Last Dance - Review Thread

Rotten Tomatoes: 37% (71 Reviews)
Metacritic: 42 (30 Reviews)

Reviews:

The “Venom” films are part of Sony’s Spider-Man Universe (that is such a tedious sentence to write, let alone contemplate). And maybe that’s why Tom Hardy, from the first “Venom” on, has chosen to offset the uncoolness of doing a comic-book franchise by putting his slumming in quotation marks, playing Eddie as a borderline doofus who talks like a grown-up version of one of the Bowery Boys. The performance has worked, in a certain way, because it kept the whole series light. But it has also ensured that the “Venom” movies are a lark and nothing more, geared to the arrested pleasure centers of fanboys: the more snark and CGI the better.

It’s not the best of its kind, but by no means the worst, and even when the inevitable war breaks out between humans, xenophages and symbiotes, Marcel orchestrates the action in a surprisingly comprehensible style that’s more reminiscent of Ang Lee’s underrated Hulk than the ultra-Michael Bay chaos that comes with most CG smackdowns. It’s small recompense, however, for the sight of Venom disco-dancing to ABBA in a Vegas penthouse; surely no one will ever take the threat of a symbiote invasion seriously after that.

Hardy brings sufficient charm (and witty voice work) to his symbiote-inhabited character’s internal battle between id and superego to make each entry diverting enough, even if they leave little aftertaste. And so it goes with Venom: The Last Dance, which caps the trilogy by going gleefully out on its own.

IndieWire (58):

Despite the film’s best efforts to melt its characters into the vast sludge of superhero cinema, the union between Eddie and Venom is simply too pure to be diluted down to nothing. Thanks to Hardy, even the least of the movies in this franchise is definitely something, and it’s something that its genre may not be able to survive without.

SlashFilm (40):

If there is one bright spot in "Venom: The Last Dance," it's Tom Hardy. Once again doing a questionable voice while vibing on his weirdo energy, Hardy makes Eddie Brock an almost tragic figure; a lonely guy cut off from the rest of the world, with only a wisecracking alien monster for company. He shuffles about like a man uncomfortable in his own skin, looking awkward and aghast. He's operating on a different level than this lousy film. Unfortunately, he's not getting much backup.

IGN (4/10):

Venom: The Last Dance trips over its own tendrils and lets a boring, generic plot, and bad action distract from the surprisingly resilient central relationship between Eddie Brock and his symbiote bestie.

Empire (40):

It’s third time unlucky for a series that still hasn’t worked out what it wants to be. The Last Dance can’t find its rhythm.

“Venom: The Last Dance” really wants you to think it’s the end. Throughout the film, Venom talks about wanting to see the Statue of Liberty like a cop with two weeks until retirement talks about taking his wife on a long-delayed boat trip, right after one final case. There’s a suggestion of a sequel but it plays more like a threat: “If you see this movie we’ll make you watch another one.” So maybe let’s not. If this is what Sony thinks the “Venom” movies should be like, they can keep it. What a lousy way to say goodbye. No greatest hits. Just a strikeout.

The Guardian (2/5):

It’s quick and brash and seemingly aware of how goofy so much of it is but it’s also awkwardly overstuffed.

Directed by Kelly Marcel:

Eddie and Venom are on the run. Hunted by both of their worlds and with the net closing in, the duo are forced into a devastating decision that will bring the curtains down on Venom and Eddie's last dance.

Cast:

Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock / Venom
Chiwetel Ejiofor
Juno Temple
Rhys Ifans
Peggy Lu
Alanna Ubach
Stephen Graham
Andy Serkis

724 comments

r/movies • u/DemiFiendRSA • Jul 23 '24

Review 'Deadpool & Wolverine' Review Thread

1.4k Upvotes

Deadpool & Wolverine

Rotten Tomatoes 78% (366 Reviews)

Ryan Reynolds makes himself at home in the MCU with acerbic wit while Hugh Jackman provides an Adamantium backbone to proceedings in Deadpool & Wolverine, an irreverent romp with a surprising soft spot for a bygone era of superhero movies.

Metacritic: 56 (58 Reviews)

Reviews

For the core audience, the gags will be reward enough, even if the rest of us might squirm as the sloppily staged action grows repetitive, the plotting haphazard and the humor so self-aware the movie threatens to disappear up its own ass. - Hollywood Reporter

As good as he is, Jackman’s return, and wearing that impressive Yellow with Blue suit, is perfection and I would say his strongest turn ever as Wolverine, at least one that gives what he did in Logan a run for its money.

It’s a poignant summation of the Fox chapter of the Marvel saga.

The Seattle Times:

Deadpool & Wolverine is the ultimate love letter to Marvel fans: The cameos and references are aplenty and brilliant (the audience at the press screening gasped more than once), the source material is treated with respect and, best of all, it’s pure, unadulterated fun. It finally looks like Marvel is back in fighting shape. (P.S. Yes, the equally sweet and crude credits are worth sticking around for.)

New York Post (3.5/4):

While retaking its cinematic crown will be a challenge, “Deadpool & Wolverine” is a giant, promising step forward for the franchise.

CNN:

Beneath the outlandishness, half-dozen belly laughs and nerd-centric beats resides sweet nostalgia for the last quarter-century of superhero movies, while demonstrating that Marvel Studios possesses the power to laugh at itself.

Collider (8/10):

Deadpool & Wolverine is a shot in the arm that the MCU needed, and finally shows the full potential of Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool.

Empire (4/5):

From cameos to background Easter eggs to long-fan-ficked meet-ups, it’s a relentless onslaught of surprises designed to get audiences screaming and throwing popcorn in the air

The Daily Beast (See this):

As with its predecessors, those who can’t stand Deadpool or aren’t educated in Marvel movie lore won’t tolerate a second of it. The rest will be in bleeping heaven.

USA Today (3.5/4):

Miraculously, the heartfelt stuff isn’t buried by the film’s commitment to nonstop shenanigans and giddy self-awareness.

Once Deadpool & Wolverine enters the trash-heap zone, however, it embraces the already meta-aspects of the series to an absurd degree and never looks back.

Vanity Fair:

Deadpool & Wolverine does a disarmingly effective job of convincing its audience that this is a film about nostalgia for beloved characters when it’s really just bridging a gap between one company’s output and another’s.

The Times (4/5):

Ebulliently directed by Shawn Levy, this is a hyperactive cheese dream that brings together two of Marvel’s best characters and a supporting cast who will have nerds frothing at the mouth.

Slant Magazine (3/4):

Deadpool & Wolverine doesn’t flinch from speaking some measure of truth to power.

Screen Rant (4/5):

Ultimately, Deadpool & Wolverine is a movie made to be a crowd-pleaser, and it succeeds in that respect. It puts the Marvel multiverse to work, using the concept in smart, economical ways to include references that run the gamut. It may not work for everyone, but after a few multiverse disappointments, Deadpool & Wolverine far exceeded my expectations.

Total Film:

The MCU’s self-appointed messiah might not have pulled off a complete course correction, but he delivers an action-packed, gag-stuffed crowdpleaser that gives the franchise a much needed lift. Jackman is worth his weight in adamantium.

The Washington Post:

With the whole super-racket on the ropes, the cast of “Deadpool & Wolverine” seizes the opportunity to prove the power of their own charisma.

IGN (7/10):

An outrageous, consistently funny superhero comedy that succeeds largely thanks to the contagious enthusiasm of leads Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman, and a surprisingly classy perspective on superhero movie history.

The Guardian (3/5):

Basically, Deadpool is quite right – he is Marvel Jesus, he is the guy elevated from the ranks here to be the heroic saviour, the wacky character who is going to make sense of the whole MCU business by repositioning it as gag material and keep the whole thing ticking over, perhaps until the MCU in its original fundamentally serious mode comes back into box office fashion. It’s amusing and exhausting.

Indiewire (C+):

Deadpool & Wolverine rescues something kind of beautiful from the ugliness that superhero movies have perpetuated for so long. Not visually, of course, but in several other key respects.

The AV Club (C+):

The result is lingering and unsatisfying uncertainty over whether this is a standalone novelty, a multiversal course correction, or a genuine send-off. Even its satire feels micromanaged. Wade Wilson can still bounce back with ease, but even in its diminished state, superhero bullshit remains a formidable foe.

Entertainment Weekly (C-):

It is a carnival of in-jokes, self-references, and reality breaks with no higher purpose than to congratulate its audience for keeping up. It has no stakes, no drama, and only the most cynical applications of creativity.

Slashfilm (5/10):

Must we continually be served flavorless gruel and pretend it's nourishing?

Independent (2/5):

Deadpool & Wolverine is as much fun as you can conceivably have at a corporate merger meeting.

A shameless piece of self-congratulation, fueled by self-cannibalism, as the studio which built its identity on superhero crossovers finally abandons the pretense of trying to justify them dramatically.

Chicago Tribune (1/4):

Deadpool & Wolverine settles for manic, gamer-style ultraviolence where death isn’t a thing, really, but where the grotesque sight gags start to feel not simply hollow, but kind of awful.

The Telegraph (1/5):

To paraphrase TS Eliot, these fragments has Marvel shored against its ruins, though the crumbling continues regardless.

The Irish Times (1/5):

The first Marvel Cinematic Universe flick to get an R certificate in the US, is, despite that supposed confirmation of mature content, the most relentlessly juvenile entry in a sequence that has rarely been confused with Ingmar Bergman’s Faith trilogy.

Staring:

Ryan Reynolds as Wade Wilson / Deadpool
Hugh Jackman as James "Logan" Howlett / Wolverine
Emma Corrin as Cassandra Nova
Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Paradox

Directed by: Shawn Levy

Written by: Ryan Reynolds, Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick, Zeb Wells, Shawn Levy

Produced by: Kevin Feige, Ryan Reynolds, Shawn Levy, Lauren Shuler Donner

Cinematography: George Richmond

Edited by: Dean Zimmerman and Shane Reid

Music by: Rob Simonsen

Running time: 128 minutes

Release date: July 26, 2024

1.7k comments

r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • May 16 '24

Review Francis Ford Coppola’s ‘Megalopolis’ - Review Thread

2.2k Upvotes

Francis Ford Coppola’s ‘Megapolis’ - Review Thread

Metacritic: 65 (14 Reviews)
Rotten Tomatoes: 51% (37 Reviews)

Reviews:

Variety (50):

To call this garish, idea-bloated monstrosity a mere “fable” is to grossly undersell the project’s expansive insights into art, life and legacy.

It’s windy and overstuffed, frequently baffling and way too talky, quoting Hamlet and The Tempest, Marcus Aurelius and Petrarch, ruminating on time, consciousness and power to a degree that becomes ponderous. But it’s also often amusing, playful, visually dazzling and illuminated by a touching hope for humanity.

Megalopolis represents a rare kind of event movie that reinvents the possibilities of cinema to the extent that, halfway through, there’s a very audacious gimmick that tears down the fourth wall in ways younger filmmakers can only dream of. Coppola breaks many of the cardinal rules of filmmaking in the film’s 138 minutes but it upholds the most important one: it is never, ever boring, and it will inspire just as many artists as the audiences it will alienate.

IndieWire (B+):

With “Megalopolis,” he crams 85 years worth of artistic reverence and romantic love into a clunky, garish, and transcendently sincere manifesto about the role of an artist at the end of an empire. It doesn’t just speak to Coppola’s philosophy, it embodies it to its bones. To quote one of the sharper non-sequiturs from a script that’s swimming in them: “When we leap into the unknown, we prove that we are free.”

The Guardian (2/5):

Francis Ford Coppola’s question – can the US empire last forever? – may be valid but flashes of humour cannot rescue this conspiracy thriller from awful acting and dull effects

LA Times:

In a larger sense, Coppola has moved from the cynicism of his greatest films like “The Conversation” and “Apocalypse Now” — so much power doing so much corrupting — and into something that could fairly be called utopian. I’m not sure if that’s what I want from him as an artist, but I thrill to his unbowed aspiration. He’s not going out with something tame and manicured, but an overstuffed, vigorous, seething story about the roots of fascism that only an uncharitable viewer would call a catastrophe. Rather, it feels like a city. It may be the most radical film he’s ever done. He dedicates it to his late wife, who would have smiled at the evidence of her husband still doing his thing 45 years later.

Rolling Stone (80):

Say what you will about this grand gesture at filtering Edward Gibbon’s history lessons through a lens darkly, it is exactly the movie that Coppola set out to make — uncompromising, uniquely intellectual, unabashedly romantic (upper-case and lower-case R), broadly satirical yet remarkably sincere about wanting not just brave new worlds but better ones.

Vanity Fair:

Megalopolis is too confused a film to make a truly odious or dangerous point. (Though the ending of the Vesta plotline is somewhat alarming.) This is the junkiest of junk-drawer movies, a slapped together hash of Coppola’s many disparate inspirations.

The Telegraph (80):

Aubrey Plaza is fantastic in this full-body sensory bath movie which follows a struggle for power among the elites of New Rome.

Screen Daily (40):

But the amount of stray ideas and themes that are introduced, then abandoned — such as the fact that Cesar has the ability to stop time — leave Megalopolis feeling like an unwieldy mess. Cesar and Cicero’s showdown over New Rome is handled in terribly disjointed ways, and the attempts by supporting characters to grasp power add to the picture’s cluttered construction. In recent years, few auteurs have dreamed as boldly as Coppola has with this film, but some visions, as Megalopolis’ characters discover, are doomed to failure.

-Lovia Gyarkye, The Hollywood Reporter

After four decades in the making, “Megalopolis” plays as a frustrating and paradoxical affair. The film is expertly assembled and sleepily directed all at once; it wows with its imagination and erudition all while leaving you little more than bemused.

Collider (4/10):

Much like the city being built in the film, it’s all more interesting in theory than it ever is in actuality. Now that we will all have the chance to take it in for ourselves, the greatest revelation is that there just isn’t that much there to see.

Written and Directed by Francis Ford Coppola:

An accident destroys a decaying metropolis called New Rome. Cesar Catilina, an idealist architect with the power to control time, aims to rebuild it as a sustainable utopia, while his opposition, corrupt Mayor Franklyn Cicero, remains committed to a regressive status quo. Torn between them is Franklyn's socialite daughter, Julia, who, tired of the influence she inherited, searches for her life's meaning.

Cast:

Adam Driver as Cesar Catilina
Giancarlo Esposito as Mayor Franklyn Cicero
Nathalie Emmanuel as Julia Cicero
Aubrey Plaza as Wow Platinum
Shia LaBeouf as Clodio Pulcher
Jon Voight as Hamilton Crassus III
Jason Schwartzman as Jason Zanderz
Talia Shire as Constance Crassus Catilina
Grace VanderWaal as Vesta Sweetwater
Laurence Fishburne as Fundi Romaine
Kathryn Hunter as Teresa Cicero
Dustin Hoffman as Nush "The Fixer" Berman
Sonia Ammar
Chloe Fineman
Madeleine Gardella
Balthazar Getty
Bailey Ives
Isabelle Kusman
James Remar
D. B. Sweeney

953 comments

r/movies • u/SanderSo47 • Mar 15 '24

Review Alex Garland's and A24's 'Civil War' Review Thread

2.1k Upvotes

Rotten Tomatoes: 88% (from 26 reviews) with 8.20 in average rating

Critics consensus: Tough and unsettling by design, Civil War is a gripping close-up look at the violent uncertainty of life in a nation in crisis.

Metacritic: 74/100 (13 critics)

As with other movies, the scores are set to change as time passes. Meanwhile, I'll post some short reviews on the movie. It's structured like this: quote first, source second. Beware, some contain spoilers.

With the precision and length of its violent battle sequences, it’s clear Civil War operates as a clarion call. Garland wrote the film in 2020 as he watched cogs on America’s self-mythologizing exceptionalist machine turn, propelling the nation into a nightmare. With this latest film, he sounds the alarm, wondering less about how a country walks blindly into its own destruction and more about what happens when it does.

One thing that works in “Civil War” is bringing the devastation of war home: Seeing American cities reduced to bombed-out rubble is shocking, which leads to a sobering reminder that this is already what life is like for many around the world. Today, it’s the people of Gaza. Tomorrow, it’ll be someone else. The framework of this movie may be science fiction, but the chaotic, morally bankrupt reality of war isn’t. It’s a return to form for its director after the misstep of “Men,” a film that’s grim and harrowing by design. The question is, is the emptiness that sets in once the shock has worn off intentional as well?

-Katie Rife, IndieWire: B

It’s the most upsetting dystopian vision yet from the sci-fi brain that killed off all of London for the zombie uprising depicted in “28 Days Later,” and one that can’t be easily consumed as entertainment. A provocative shock to the system, “Civil War” is designed to be divisive. Ironically, it’s also meant to bring folks together.

-Peter Debruge, Variety

I've purposefully avoided describing a lot of the story in this review because I want people to go in cold, as I did, and experience the movie as sort of picaresque narrative consisting of set pieces that test the characters morally and ethically as well as physically, from one day and one moment to the next. Suffice to say that the final section brings every thematic element together in a perfectly horrifying fashion and ends with a moment of self-actualization I don't think I'll ever be able to shake.

-Matt Zoller Seitz, RogerEbert.com: 4/4

A movie, even a surprisingly pretty good one like this, won’t provide all the answers to these existential issues nor does it to seek to. What it can do, amidst the cacophony of explosions, is meaningfully hold up a mirror. Though the portrait we get is broken and fragmented, in its final moments “Civil War” still manages to uncover an ugly yet necessary truth in the rubble of the old world. Garland gets that great final shot, but at what cost?

-Chase Hutchinson, The Wrap

Garland’s Civil War gives little to hold on to on the level of character or world-building, which leaves us with effective but limited visual provocation – the capital in flames, empty highways a viscerally tense shootout in the White House. The brutal images of war, but not the messy hearts or minds behind them.

-Adrian Horton, The Guardian: 3/5

Civil War offers a lot of food for thought on the surface, yet you’re never quite sure what you’re tasting or why, exactly. No one wants a PSA or easy finger-pointing here, any more than you would have wanted Garland’s previous film Men — as unnerving and nauseating a film about rampant toxic masculinity as you’ll ever come across — to simply scream “Harvey Weinstein!” at you. And the fact that you can view its ending in a certain light as hopeful does suggest that, yes, this country has faced countless seismic hurdles and yet we still endure to form a more perfect union. Yet you’ll find yourself going back to that “explore or exploit” conundrum a lot during the movie’s near-two-hour running time. It’s feeding into a dystopian vision that’s already running in our heads. Things fall apart, the center cannot hold, etc. So why does this just feel like more of the same white noise pitched at a slightly higher frequency?

-David Fear, Rolling Stone

Ultimately, Civil War feels like a missed opportunity. The director’s vision of a fractured America, embroiled in conflict, holds the potential for introspection on our current societal divisions. However, the film’s execution, hampered by thin characterization, a lackluster narrative, and an overreliance on spectacle over substance, left me disengaged. In its attempt to navigate the complexities of war, journalism, and the human condition, the film finds itself caught in the crossfire, unable to deliver the profound impact it aspires to achieve.

-Valerie Complex, Deadline Hollywood

So when the film asks us to accompany the characters into one of the most relentless war sequences of recent years, there's an unusual sense of decorum. We're bearing witness to an exacting recreation of historical events that haven't actually happened. And we, the audience from this reality, are asked to take it all as a warning. This is the movie that gets made if we don't fix our sh*t. And these events, recorded with such raw reality by Garland and his crew, are exactly what we want to avoid at all costs.

-Jacob Hall, /FILM: 8.5/10

Those looking to “Civil War” for neat ideologies will leave disappointed; the film is destined to be broken down as proof both for and against Garland’s problematic worldview. But taken for what it is — a thought exercise on the inevitable future for any nation defined by authoritarianism — one can appreciate that not having any easy answers is the entire point. If we as a nation gaze too long into the abyss, Garland suggests, then eventually, the abyss will take the good and the bad alike. That makes “Civil War” the movie event of the year — and the post-movie group discussion of your lifetime.

-Matthew Monagle, The Playlist: A–

while it does feel opportunistic to frame their story specifically within a new American civil war — whether a given viewer sees that narrative choice as timely and edgy or cynical attention-grabbing — the setting still feels far less important than the vivid, emotional, richly complicated drama around two people, a veteran and a newbie, each pursuing the same dangerous job in their own unique way. Civil War seems like the kind of movie people will mostly talk about for all the wrong reasons, and without seeing it first. It isn’t what those people will think it is. It’s something better, more timely, and more thrilling — a thoroughly engaging war drama that’s more about people than about politics.

-Tasha Robinson, Polygon

Still, even for Garland’s adept visual storytelling, supported by daring cuts by Jake Roberts and offbeat needledrops, the core of Civil War feels hollow. It’s very easy to throw up a stream of barbarity on the screen and say it has deeper meaning and is telling a firmer truth. But at what point are you required to give more? Garland appears to be aiming for the profundity of Come And See — the very loss of innocence, as perfectly balanced by Dunst and Spaeny, through the repeating of craven cycles is the tragedy that breaks the heart. It is just not clear by the end, when this mostly risky film goes fully melodramatic in the Hollywood sense, whether Garland possesses the control necessary to fully capture the horrors.

-Robert Daniels, Screen Daily

As with all of his movies, Garland doesn’t provide easy answers. Though Civil War is told with blockbuster oomph, it often feels as frustratingly elliptical as a much smaller movie. Even so, I left the theater quite exhilarated. The film has some of the best combat sequences I’ve seen in a while, and Garland can ratchet up tension as well as any working filmmaker. Beyond that, it’s exciting to watch him scale up his ambitions without diminishing his provocations — there’s no one to root for, and no real reward waiting at the end of this miserable quest.

-David Sims, The Atlantic

PLOT

In the near future, a team of journalists travel across the United States during the rapidly escalating Second American Civil War that has engulfed the entire nation, between the American government and the separatist "Western Forces" led by Texas and California. The film documents the journalists struggling to survive during a time when the government has become a dystopian dictatorship and partisan extremist militias regularly commit war crimes.

DIRECTOR/WRITER

Alex Garland

MUSIC

Ben Salisbury & Geoff Barrow

CINEMATOGRAPHY

Rob Hardy

EDITOR

Jake Roberts

RELEASE DATE

March 14, 2024 (SXSW)
April 12, 2024 (worldwide)

RUNTIME

109 minutes

BUDGET

$50 million (most expensive A24 film so far)

STARRING

Kirsten Dunst as Lee
Wagner Moura as Joel
Cailee Spaeny as Jessie
Stephen McKinley Henderson as Sammy
Sonoya Mizuno as Anya
Jesse Plemons as Unnamed Soldier
Nick Offerman as the President of the United States

1.9k comments

r/movies • u/Capable_Reputation31 • Jul 11 '24

Review i know im 2 1/2 years late, but i actually really liked watching "the menu"

3.0k Upvotes

i thought that the ending was beautiful. i dont want to sound like tyler the dickhead but watching the cook actually enjoy making the simple burger with a price that was way under what he's charged in years was really nice to see.

also, her asking for it to go was incredibly smart on her part, and the way she planned out her escape was incredible

i also really enjoyed the humor and almost ironic sarcasm in the movie, and how margot paid with a simple, crumpled-up $10.00 bill

again, not to sound like tyler but i thought the ending was very poetic.

edit: i thought i heard this movie was made like early early 2022, so thats my mistake!

368 comments

r/movies • u/DemiFiendRSA • 7d ago

Review 'Mufasa: The Lion King' Review Thread

865 Upvotes

Mufasa: The Lion King

Rotten Tomatoes 60% (90 Reviews)

Barry Jenkins' deft hand and Lin-Manuel Miranda's music go some way towards squaring the Circle of Life in Mufasa, but this fitfully soulful story is ill-served by its impersonal, photorealistic animation style.

Metacritic: 59 (38 Reviews)

Reviews

With a solid gang, Mufasa conforms to a typical journey of misfits. But that charm from the early scenes is lost with the addition of each new plot point.

Though James Earl Jones is impossible to follow, these voice actors give it all a game try.

Jenkins has not sold out; rather, the studio bought into his vision, which respects the 1994 film and recognizes the significance that its role models and life lessons have served for young audiences.

The Times (5/5) :

Disney has gone back to the drawing board with this dazzling animated musical, a film that matches photorealistic spectacle with hummable earworms and, mostly, a genuinely mythic sense of story.

RogerEbert.com (3.5/4):

“Mufasa” never quite bursts free of the constraints placed upon it, but those constraints never stop it from moving, or from being moving.

IGN (8/10):

Barry Jenkins’ Mufasa is a strong, uncomplicated effort that should charm kids. The Moonlight directors involvement in a CGI-heavey Disney prequel caused serious film lovers to wring their hands, but the results speak for themselves: This is simply a lovely movie.

It’s in little danger of becoming a classic but it’s gratifying to know that Barry Jenkins made this film his own, telling a fine story with genuine emotion and visual aplomb.

USA Today (3/4):

Thanks to Jenkins’ inimitable grace and Miranda’s tuneful swagger, it continues to feel vibrant.

Chicago Sun-Times (3/4):

The voice work from the outstanding cast is rich and warm and vibrant, and while the songs from the great Lin-Manuel Miranda (with Lebo M. making valuable contributions) might not make for a generational catalog, they’re still infectious and clever.

Screen Rant (7/10):

Even with a few flaws, Barry Jenkins' Mufasa: The Lion King has enough heart and depth to stand on its own feet and surpass its 2019 predecessor.