While I did appreciate my experience, The Invisible Man is not devoid of criticism. Most of the problems I had with it come from its leaps in logic. There are basic situations where the explanation given by the film is not satisfactory in the moment. These were done to keep audiences on their toes and drive suspense, though all attempts at that fall flat if you don't buy it. What makes this problem notable is that its a recurring problem throughout the movie's runtime. So if it doesn't work the first time, then it probably will continue to fail until the end.
As stated above, The Invisible Man is actually a good time at the theater. While it's not for the whole family, it is something a little more mature for audiences that are craving content in this weird time. The best part is probably Elizabeth Moss, who plays the main character; her performance and ability to sell the scenes is what makes it all come together. It won't be nominated for anything come awards season, but I wouldn't be surprised if some bring it up for their personal favorites at the end of the year.
Some joke about invisible or something
While it might have been Mendes' idea to make the movie in this way, it was Roger Deakins who actually achieved it. 1917 has Deakin's fingerprints all over it as his signature style is on display in every image. His choice to film with natural light sources leads to mesmerizing sequences that have been spoiled in the trailer. If you decide to watch this in the theater, it will be to see his work on a big screen. I say that because other than the incredibly high production value, there isn't much else to look forward to.
1917 fails to capture the human element of war. It does a great job keeping the audience on their toes as the one-shot presentation keeps the tension high. There are moments of fear, exhaustion, and hope, all of which blend thematically with the setting, but none give you the anchor into its characters. I need more than just a goal and a coherent plot to keep me interested. When I said it had tension and all those other things, I lied. It only had those elements for some of the time, as it mostly fell flat for me.
The driving force of the story is for two soldiers to deliver an order that would save many lives. The importance of their mission is blatant but seems to fall on deaf ears as almost everyone they meet doesn't care. That message of indifference seeped through and became the stance I took. While the script tries to give these characters humanizing moments, not much of it stuck. This disconnect comes down to how they were delivered. I could see the gears turning in the background as scenes of tension would be invalidated moments later. When plot points were being set up and then never referenced again, it felt like they were just cheap tricks.
It all comes down to what you appreciate about the art form. I like movies because they tell interesting stories about engaging characters. 1917 doesn't have that but instead offers a project that excels in production. The fancy camera sweeps, tracking shots, and set pieces offer visually stunning sequences that are enviable. While I didn't enjoy the film that much, I can recognize great work when I see it.
Without Roger Deakins, the movie would have been nothing special
Whenever there was a wide shot of actors in a room, I could not buy into the fact that these were cat height people. So in a way, I was unoffended by Cats in general.
Now, would I recommend someone one spend the 2 hours to watch people that kinda look like cats dance around to music that isn’t very good? No. But I do have to say I wasn’t bored, just that I almost fell asleep. The almost cozy atmosphere and uninteresting plot provides a wonderful atmosphere to rest your eyes a bit. You probably shouldn’t see this film, ever. But, if you ever need to fall asleep when it comes to streaming, then it might just do the trick.
No one has the time to look into the allusions and symbolism for a play made for the 60s
It's obvious what Queen & Slim is supposed to be about; it tries to present a plausible scenario and champion a sentiment held by many in society. This in itself would have been great, but the story tries to tackle too many different topics; the film suffers from being bloated and unfocused. The result is that none of the issues get the time they need to be fleshed out. This disappointment piles on top of the editing problems that the movie has. Many scenes could have been removed, and nothing would have changed. Hard cuts required the audience to accept drastically different tones in an instant, a situation that happened many times.
All of the scenes that did work, or evoked an emotional response, were used in the trailer. There were just a lot of choices made in the actual movie that distracted from the merit that was there. While the plot and editing were not very good, the acting breathed life into the film and kept it bearable. The performances by the leads added depth to dialogue that could fall flat and brought the characters' emotions to life. I would not recommend you go out and see this movie, but it wasn't absolutely horrible.
I was waiting for the Bee Gees and it never came
over-edited monstrosity, I would advise against joining them. The first half of the movie is constantly cutting to different songs, which makes you feel like you're watching a musical. These were done to match action sequences which became unintelligible as a shot couldn't be held for longer than 10 seconds. There were sequences where I didn't know what was happening as screen shake and fast panning obfuscated what was happening in a scene.
Cementing the Saturday morning cartoon comparison, the characters were dialed up to an eleven as they appeared to be caricatures of their former selves. Many might find the banter between the leads humorous, but all I experienced was a full stop in pacing to try and make the audience laugh. There was also a flirtatious relationship between one of the marquee characters and another main character. This element was added to the story since the only other thing was "we need to save the world again".
The most interesting aspect of Hobbs & Shaw was the director, David Leitch. His last two films, Atomic Blonde and Deadpool 2, were not very good and I was expecting as much with his latest. To my surprise, there was very little evidence of his directing style. He usually uses a static camera, allowing for the fight choreography to take center stage. Either Leitch has changed his directing style to be more flashy, or there are different expectations for a Fast & Furious movie. The only through line of his directing career seems to be a facilitator of wild creators.
Hobbs & Shaw is just a pit stop before the mainline series gets back to theaters. It lacks the spectacle that recent entries have established and dilutes what makes the franchise special. I would have had the same experience watching this on a screen at home rather than seeing it in theaters. This is definitely worth renting later on or just not seeing at all.
There was tons of CGI that didn't work because their physics were wrong
An area of the movie that is not great is the story. The trailers led you to believe a situation is happening to a family, this I have no problem with. I went to go see a movie about creepy clones attacking normal people and instead I got... hand holding. Everything about the movie is great until you reach the end of the second act. At that moment, it asks the audience to provide a reason for the events happening. It was here that the story starts to unravel, but I was still enjoying it. My complete disappointment did stem from the fact that there were no real answers given. Jordan Peele has admitted that he doesn't have any answers for the questions he presented, nor does the story really represent anything.
I have to give a big shout out to "I Got 5 On It", the song for the trailer, acting as the theme song for the movie. I always love when a movie has an anthem, and since the song was played multiple times, it definitely fulfilled its role. So great choice even deciding for this movie to have one.
One aspect of the movie I thought we had gotten over in the film industry is stupid people in horror movies. Get Out had a little bit of this, but there is so much of this here. There were so many moments I wondered why characters did things that shouldn't be done when someone is trying to kill you. There were also many instances where the attackers didn't kill the victims when they were actively trying to murder. In this respect, the movie felt padded out annoying.
Us proves that Jordan Peele is a capable director, able to come up with interesting ideas. His presentation is clean and is able to get great actors to provide amazing performances. One of my favorite things that it's not immediately noticeable is that the father in this movie is played by Winston Duke, M'Baku from Black Panther. Other than some pretty annoying aspects, this is a good enough movie.
The twist is basically useless
shot of some rocks. To say that the film looked particularly dazzling would be lying, this is just more of the same and doesn't wow.
I could talk about how the characters are paper thin, that the story spends time in needless areas, and that there didn't need to be a "bad guy". All of these things are valid, but I feel like I am repeating myself in my reviews. It seems all made for kids/family movies are dropping in quality. Never letting the audience soak in complex emotions and telling the viewer what to think and how to feel. This movie isn't exciting, though the person jiggling their foot on the back of my chair would argue. There are no real stakes, the villain isn't set-up that well, and this is just a disappointing conclusion to the franchise.
But its ok to like this movie. I know a lot of people really enjoyed what they saw, and that's fine. Just because the best parts are about animals being cute doesn't mean that this movie needs to be buried alive; just be skeptical when someone says its really good.
I don't even want to rate this/10
I guess you forgo character development and story if you got cute dragons
little slow and convoluted but quickly starts to set up the rest of the of the story. It's not boring which is a huge plus and makes liberal use of varying camera angles to try and keep the fight scenes dynamic.
It's in the first act I caught on to a couple of things that was going on. The overuse of single take camera moves cut together with stationary shots created a stop and go feeling. It felt slightly jarring and was extremely noticeable. It seems that this was done in an attempt to make the movie feel more serious and grounded. The second thing I noticed was the weird way fights were edited together. Instead of showing fights where you can see the action take place, the audience was relegated to close up shots of actors' faces. There wasn’t even that much choreography in the fights themselves. The first fight is just two people hugging each other before jumping out a window.
Once people realized there was a third movie in the Unbreakable/Split trilogy, it became a guaranteed hit. But the simple fact is that even though there are moments of brilliance, Glass ultimately drowns in a small puddle. Some will say that the slow second act works because of the slow pacing throughout, that the drama is somehow escalated in this part. They are wrong. If you thought Glass was the superhero movie we needed, to an extent, so did M. Night Shyamalan. He constantly reminds you about comic books and superheroes as he has the characters say the word “comic book” almost ten times in twenty minutes. The idea that these people are superheroes is shoved down your throat for an hour. A nice way of putting it would be that this film lacks subtlety.
Before I get to my conclusion I want to bring up a couple more points that stood out to me. The fight scenes continued to be poorly represented in the movie. The only time you get to see anything slightly interesting is from security cam footage, probably due to budgetary reasons. The stationary camera allowed for easier VFX shots to be done and at a distance, lowering the cost for the few in the movie. Next, is the fight choreography. It seems that this was not a priority at all as there is very little action on display. Most of the fighting comes down to hugging or is almost unseeable due to it happening in the background of a shot.
I had high hopes for Glass. It's almost comical how you can watch the trailer and know about 90% of what is going to happen. The movie dropped the ball so hard and I don’t know if Shyamalan can recover. I would definitely be wary of any of his other projects and would not trust him to make a big budget movie. I guess if you really need closure to the Split storyline or wanted Unbreakable 2 you can watch this movie. You are not going to like with how this story ends as it feels like even M. Night didn’t even know what to do with these characters.
I literally didn't even know what to put here
However, the movie runs into a few problems on its way to grow the Grinch's heart three sizes. It takes detours that don't help portray the lesson trying to be taught by the original story. The Grinch, written by Dr. Seuss, was about a green-haired person who hated Christmas and overcame that hatred when he found out that the holiday was about caring for one another instead of gifts. This movie decided that they needed to add a backstory for the Grinch which overall made him less mean. There are multiple instances where the Grinch is nice, which makes his change seem inevitable. They also add a subplot for Cindy-Lou to have a bigger part in the story but make her motivations too mature. A ten-year-old would not ask Santa for their parent to become happy; that would be too unrealistic in a movie with a Christmas tree the size of a mountain.
If the Grinch is just a lonely person, why wouldn't he change at the end of the story? If he is nice all the time, why wouldn't he give the stolen presents back? The movie hinders itself by making a ton of gags in place of substance. So I had fun watching this movie because of all the silly jokes, but I can't overlook how the story didn't feel right. I could never buy all the "bad" things the Grinch did because he was never terrible. The movie "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" from 1966 is the better animated movie for adapting a classic right. Sure, it has too much motion blur and its not as good as the 30-minute tv-movie from 1966, but at least its almost Christmas season.
"It wont make your heart grow three sizes" - Anonymous
The one area where Halloween (2018) fails tremendously is in the horror department; it plays more like a limited action movie rather than a slasher film. This isn’t to say Michael Myers does not murder a lot of people in the movie, but the murders lack tension making each death feel like a popcorn moment. The movie makes a point to reference the first film where Michael kills five people; in the current movie, he kills at least double that amount to little fanfare. The majority of his victims are unimportant, random extras that elicit no reaction from the audience. When he finally threatens the main characters, I believed they were not in any real danger.
Other than the lack of tension and overall scariness, the movie is a mixed bag. There were plenty of well framed shots that made great use of lighting and some really great ideas in the movie that made it shine. However, those moments were weighed down by dialogue that felt dated and cliche relationships that Hollywood should have left behind.
Halloween (2018) wasn’t the scary movie I paid to see and it suffered for it. People wanted to be scared on a trip down nostalgia lane and good lighting won’t change their minds. If you really need to see a scary movie for Halloween, this might not scratch that itch. There is nothing that makes this movie a must see in theaters, though it’ll make a perfect rental down the road if you want to hear that theme song again.
That theme song though