Da 5 Bloods
On the Record
I May Destroy You
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No user info supplied.
If you were to take a moment of appreciation of the two sequels (the first one about two teens throwing a tantrum and the second one about a vainly colorful band of heroes that seriously needs a balance patch) following this movie, you would definitely agree that Man of Steel is an extraordinary motion picture compared to those two flicks. I believe that the movie was a pretty great start for the newly begun cinematic universe. If DC and WB had kept up the good work, the DCEU might have become an acclaimed and lucrative film series like the MCU. Sadly, that is nothing more than a wild hope, isn't it? Anyway, back to the movie itself. The primary reason for Man of Steel's superiority over Zack Snyder's other two DC films is the vivid, life-like CGI. The CGI action scenes between Superman and General Zod's Kryptonian army are mind-blowing. The scope of the CGI (collapsing buildings, alien ships that remind you of Independence Day, and so on) is grand. I was dazzled by the sheer grandeur of the CGI. As for the story though, not so impressive. I was surprised by the fact that the person who wrote the story for this movie was none other than Christopher Nolan. I could sense a sort of struggle to put some depth into the story (like the structures of Kryptonian society), but it doesn't work as intended. The whole story seemed to rely too much on luck to move things along. It provides us with a lot of answers, but also leaves a lot of questions behind (how did Clark figure out that a Kryptonian ship was in the Arctic? Why does no one in Smallville seem to care about Clark's powers?). The point is, the plot is trying hard to be intricate and exciting, but it fails. You may be thinking why I am criticizing the movie all of a sudden. Here's the reason: CGI is not the main component of a movie, the story is. You know, I love awesome, exciting action sequences. All those lasers, punches, booms, and bangs. But the thing is when a movie lacks a firm story and tries to awe the viewers with extravagant CGI, it doesn't make much of an impact. It may be momentarily entertaining, like a rollercoaster, but once you get off that ride, there's nothing memorable left except that feeling of lust to ride it again. Just a thought.
Christopher Nolan surprises moviegoers yet again with another (Inception, you've seen it, right?) mind-bending (and blowing) sci-fi movie. Armed with an impressive cast and a physics professor to keep abreast of the latest discoveries in physics (though I suspect they're all just theories), Interstellar is literally unstoppable. Although the movie's attempt to keep in line with scientific accuracy makes the plot pretty hard to understand, Interstellar is very cleverly narrated and succeeds in captivating viewers with its beautiful, grand cinematography (such an aesthetic depiction of space). I was also surprised at how the movie portrays wormholes and black holes differently (more realistic, I guess?) from the predominant spiral-like shape, which gives them a much more mystifying and wonderous tone. The film makers really tried hard to boost Interstellar's faithfulness in its theme, didn't they (I can go as far as to call this flick a documentary film)? There're small details that might grab your attention, you know. As for the story, I can say that it's intriguing enough, maybe even more than enough. Space-adventure can be a bit dull and even boring for some (my feelings towards it are well, neutral), but Interstellar is nothing like that. I, with utter confidence, can declare that the movie is ‘very' exciting and suspenseful. Interstellar is a mixture of science, drama, love, and dust (don't forget the blight as well). Anyway, in my opinion, the father-daughter storyline was very well-chosen as the main plot since its quite enjoyable and heartwarming. Matthew McConaughey is splendid as Joseph Cooper, so the story moves on smoothly. I think all the actors were given the right roles to play, though some of the characters don't do much (wish I could have seen more of Anne Hathaway's Dr. Amelia Brand). As is Nolan's usual habit, an astonishing twist awaits us in the movie (the revelation came as a complete shock to me, mostly because I wasn't expecting it at all). Then, as the twist plays out, we're introduced to Dr. Mann (Matt Damon). I mentioned him because he was the only character in the whole movie who succeeds in disappointing me. I'm not going to say much about him since Dr. Mann plays an essential role in moving forward the plot, but I just want to say that his motives are somewhat irrational (not that all villains' intentions have to make sense). Now finally, the ending. I understand perfectly that due to the immense gravitational pull of Gargantua (which is a black hole), time moved much slower for Cooper and his team. And that by getting sucked into the black hole, Cooper was able to communicate with Murph via some forth dimensional mobile network. But how in the world did Cooper escape from the black hole? I don't get it. I mean, according to science, if something enters the Event Horizon, nothing, not even light, can evade the black hole's clutches. So how did Cooper manage this time-traveling fit? (I'm not much of a physics expert, so the reason for that particular situation might exist out there somewhere, but don't blame me for that) Anyhow, here's my conclusion: Interstellar is interesting and all, but without some basic knowledge of the physics used in the movie, it's going to be a perplexing journey through that black hole.
The best Batman saga ever!!!
I don't think that this movie's a total mess, at the very least. Zack Snyder did know where he was going. But it does have its downs (and some serious downs they are).
First of all, I get that Batman has a tragic backstory and that his sole aim is to punish evil-doers who escape the clutches of the law. But does that fact have to make the whole DC universe pitch-dark, literally? I mean, how can you even see what's going on in the screen? Amid the chattering of goons, sudden bangs, and the noise of things crashing, what can the audience see except the silhouttes of unidentifiable people moving around (especially when you are in a dim environment).
Then there's this: the order of the movies. It is probable that DC is following in the footsteps of Marvel, whose movies became a multi billion-dollar industry (DC would surely want to achieve such a triumph). And if you look closely at the order Marvel released their movies, you may notice that Civil War came out long after the first Avengers movie. Before the Avengers movie came the solo ones. But in DC's case, almost the exact opposite is happening. With only one movie to explain the background of a certain hero (Superman: Man of Steel), Batman v. Superman had to leave behind many questions. And since the characters haven't met each other before, doing a Civil War to get them together is sort of a weird way of doing so. Why? Well, if you had a fight with a total stranger who deliberately wanted to cause you harm, would you like to be friends with that guy in the future? Hmm, even Superman might have doubts. Mending that broken friendship(?) is going be an obstacle in the future too (how will they manage it?). So unless you are an exceptional storyteller, you will face many predicaments and loopholes in a situation like this, which leads us to our next big problem:
"Martha!" OMG. Just OMG. I never knew that a single name had the power to bring peace, even if the name belonged to a person dear to one of the fighters involved. Then what is this? Batman was on the verge of killing Superman. And he was about to. Suddenly, his attitude changes abruptly after hearing Superman's "Martha!". Maybe there was no other way to end their quarrel. Maybe they ran out of ideas. Maybe they thought this would be the movie's most emotional scene. I would never know for sure, but to me, this was the movie's worst scene (but it's actually the movie's most memorable scene because of this). I sometimes even think
that the movie might have been much better if the scene was excluded.
I like DC. I believe in Zack Snyder and his leadership. But.... Sigh.....
It feels weird to see an angry teenage version of Batman, but strangely, the concept works (well, in a way, Batman is kinda sulky, isn't he?). You could say that the movie's a bit childish, but with amazing LEGO graphics and the introduction of Batman's iconic Rogues Gallery recreated in LEGO, the LEGO Batman Movie gives you that sense of childlike innocence back to you.
Battle of Endor is intereting (with teddy bears gamboling about, who wouldn't be amused?) and the finale is just about right, in my opinion. But seriously, where's that medal for Chewie???
Battle of Hoth is impressive even in the standards of modern technology. How does Lucas do it?
This is what I call a true sci-fi classic.
To be honest with you, it wasn't the dull story that frightened me. It was the characters' faces.
For the record, I'm not usually this disappointed by a frachise movie, since the movie's exciting big-budget action scenes mostly make up for any plot holes that may have existed in the story. But, the Last Jedi, for some reason, was very disappointing. Not to mention forgettable. You know, when I walked out of the theater, I basically only remembered fragments of the whole movie, and a few hours later, I was having problem recollecting even those fragments (that's something very detrimental for a Disney movie, is it not?).
I think the fundamental problem of this movie, above all else, was how the movie presented the viewers with more questions when it should have focused on keeping track with its prequel, the Force Awakens. So what happens is that the viewer, after watching this grand new installment, has some issues connecting the movie to the previous ones. And that leads to forgetfulness (especially when the sequel's less intriguing than the prequel). To elaborate, what's up with Snoke? In the former movie, he was depicted as some mystical Sith lord with powers beyond imagination (well, I guess that's why he never showed his true capablities). But in this movie, he's just some senile man enveloped in golden robes who does nothing but die in a matter of seconds. What is this? I don't get it. If he trained Kylo Ren, shouldn't he, at least, get some scenes showing off his powers and then die? And what about Captain Phasma? In just a momentary flash, she's falling to her doom. If I were to hazard a guess, it seems that these antagonisets are being killed on purpose to give more room to some unknown new threat.
I get that Rian Johnson wanted to do something different from J.J. Abrams. And he does add some fantastic scenes to the Last Jedi, such as Luke teaching Rey the ways of the Force. But he should have paid more attention to that connectivity snag (because, if a new episode of a long-lasting series is not connected with the rest, like I said, it becomes a thorn in the saga's side). Then, maybe, the movie could have been better.
Whiplash is an interesting movie which mixes music with a bit of psychology, making it suspenseful as well as a little frightening. Plus, J.K. Simmons's acting is excellent.
One of the best animated movies I've seen in a long time. Spiderman into the Spiderverse showcases stunning comics-esque graphics, which really feels appropriate for this kind of movie. The parallel-universe story is captivating, not to mention solid. The voice actors do a fine job as well. You know, I was kinda losing my interest in these comics-based movies, but thanks to this movie, it might just revive.
I think the first movie (definitely for superhero movie fans who love a solid story, like me) will always prove to be better than the rest (no matter how many sequels come out), but Incredibles 2 is fun in its own way. It feels great to see that the movie retains the family-theme.
A touching and moving classic.
Yay, an exciting rave of Disney characters!!! How thrilling. You know, the movie's not so bad, actually (I think the expansion of the universe was pretty intersting). But I'm just tired of seeing more and more of these kinds of movies.
Okja offers a great insight on the horrors of animal agriculture. The super-pig movie does an impressive job of portraying our money-oriented society as well. Really deep and emotional.
Bird Box presents itself as an exciting and riveting horror-thriller. It's really interesting how the story plays out. The twists were well-placed and the tension was just enough. Sandra Bullock puts up an amazing performance as well.
It's true that Venom contains a number of exciting and thrilling action scenes. But, its lack of a solid story is something that even hair-raising action sequences cannot make up for. The biggest problem I had with Venom was Eddy Brock's (Tom Hardy's character) carelessness of keeping his identity a secret. I mean, he reveals his identity a million times during the movie and still, no one seems to be aware of the fact that he is the monstrous Venom. Wow.
An interesting story about Alan Turing. Surprisingly, it's not that boring either.
Gory, but I get what the movie's trying to say.