Change Your Image
mattloveless
Reviews
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Potentially fun move that couldn't settle on its tone
It was a little surprising that, with all of the time to consider all the minutiae in this film that it came out the way it did. The movie's biggest flaws, however, were clearly its character development, and - oddest of all here in the superhero movie era - poorly choreographed and campy fight scenes. I guess you can't fix those in editing very easily.
The movie opened with what I thought was a nice flashback to Diana's home, building a bit of backstory with a fun sequence. And then we zoom into 1984. Franky, seizing on the Stranger Things-esque love for everything 80s (who knew we were so nostalgic for thriving malls?) it brought a lot of hope for fun. But then, the mall fight scene happened. I'm not sure if it was purposely campy to fit an 80s vibe (80s action was generally cheeeeesy), but it launched the movie into a tone of "this is silly and fun and nostalgic." If WW84 wanted the audience to feel some emotional weight in this story, they lost it there. This was a silly, campy, superhero movie.
And that would be fine IF they didn't want so bad to broach the subjects of love, loss, honor, etc. Speaking of her love, Steve Trevor's return - and the reason for it - was so quick, emotionless, and unexplained for so long that as a discerning moviegoer, you can't help but consider that it's not him, not even the spirit of him. But nope, it is him and he's just there. So you're watching these scenes skeptically, making it harder to savor funnier moments, and harder to believe that this reunion is worth much to the movie.
I didn't love the villain origin story of Cheetah. It's Kristen Wiig playing her SNL character Penelope, until she wishes to be like Diana, only to get what she wants, and because of that, she... wants to kill Diana? Did we miss a scene in which she joined the League of Shadows and hates successful people? The movie is sort of all over the place.
Side note: Pedro Pascal is having a lot of fun right now and I'm here for it.
I really liked the first Wonder Woman, and I'm hoping I really like the third. This installment wasn't unwatchable, but too incomplete and inconsistent to deserve much praise.
Unhinged (2020)
Not good, but not good either.
By the end, I was laughing out loud at some of the ridiculousness. Unhinged reached back to some campy 70s horror by having its character do the most illogical things in order for the plot to advance to an obvious conclusion. This is not uncommon in these B-movie efforts, but I hadn't seen it take to this level in awhile. This was the first time in a long time I was legitimately frustrated at a filmmaker - several times - for crafting a movie in such a way.
The premise here is sound, taking that idea of road rage to its most extreme possible scenario. I'm sure a simple horn honk or lane change has elicited some sort of visceral reaction from a fellow driver at least once in your life. Frankly, the first 15-20 minutes are sensible & relatable. But then...
(A couple spoilers ahead)
A restaurant full of people recording a murder on their phones, and allowing the murderer to walk out without so much as a "Hey, I'm calling the police!" Police departments who send a single officer to a call about the location of a serial killer? A man who walks away, shot by a cop, untracked leaving the scene? Dying iPad batteries, nonsensically slow reactions to immediate life-threatening situations - the list goes on. It was surprising to see so many efforts to contrive these plot points when a movie like this really didn't need them.
All that said, I didn't hate it. Russell Crowe is a terrific actor, and it was a little fun to see Maximus Waistlineus go nuts. For the most part, Crowe's turn as a psychotic killer is the thing about the movie that makes the most sense. There's some eye-rolling social commentary about the reasons for his Unhinged-ness that's a bit too on-the-nose. Some news footage & commentary does okay to paint a picture of a world on the edge. And ultimately, despite how psychotic it gets, you do see in Crowe some real-life figures who think they went crazy because they were fired or their wife left them - when really it's the opposite.
By the end of all of the madness - from Crowe & the filmmaker - I was laughing, particularly at the end with the cheesy Steven Seagal-like line from the film's protagonist. Almost felt like proof that the biting social commentary - and not the quality of the movie - was the chief goal of the director.
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Deserves spot among its era, but best ever? I guess you had to be there.
I recently watched Lawrence of Arabia for the first time, as it certainly has a reputation as a classic. The film was genuinely moving and thought-provoking in parts, but altogether it's an experience akin to many movies like it: It probably watches better now if you'd already seen it decades earlier.
There's an element of stage acting in many of these classics - a manner (or even volume) of conversation, dramatic, unnatural turns toward or away from an argument - that, to me, has not aged well.
The pacing is slow and deliberate. There's maybe an hour of dialogue in this 3 hr, 42 minute movie, a runtime which is used mostly to explore the grandness of the scenery, though admittedly, at times, I wondered if the film was buffering when it wasn't. I don't think criticisms that it's a bit boring are unwarranted.
The scale of the film, even by today's standards, is pretty outstanding. Scenes of charging camels riding to battle, the music & landscapes of the desert - all of this is as advertised. The main character? I'm not sure what we're supposed to think of T.E. Lawrence. He sort of alternated between humble solider & self-appointed deity, between altruistic and self-serving. The lack of consistency never gets us to truly understand his motives or desires, and again, like movies of old, the overacting (theatrical falls to the ground, dramatic glances, contrived shouting matches) pulled those opposing themes farther apart.
Again, I feel like you just had to be there. I don't think it's unfair to suggest that Hollywood's top filmmakers have found new and innovative ways to tell great stories in the last 60 years, at least for today's audiences. If classic films aren't your cup of tea, this one may be tough to sit through.
Downhill (2020)
Enjoyable, if not flawed in attempts to mix comedy & drama
A review here for those who'd like to hear someone's take on the movie which doesn't feel the need to compare it to its original foreign counterpart. There's a certain self-serving pretentiousness in saying a movie isn't as good as a foreign film most in your reading audience hasn't seen. That seems never more so apparent here. This is a review of Downhill that's based on its own merits.
I came away liking this in the end. There were some tonal issues in the comedy/drama mix - particularly some contrivances which work better in a comedy than a relationship drama. The movie is a drama first and foremost, but is probably funniest to parents who can enjoy the awkward interactions between husband and wife trying to juggle stress for the good of their kids - and their family vacation. The humor isn't what drives this movie, however, so even Ferrell fans hoping for a laugh-fest aren't going to get it here. Both Ferrell and Louis-Dreyfus have shown strong dramatic acting chops before, and I think they do so here.
It's wonderfully shot. The wide views of the mountains and the music that accompany the cutaways makes for some great ambiance.
The nature of the movie's turning point is maybe its biggest dud, mostly because the entirety of it doesn't make much sense. The scene is initially done well, building up the intrigue and fear of the moment, but when the father returns without so much as an "are you guys okay?" the scene loses a little dramatic punch, because it seems a little too contrived that a parent, who feared for their own life, would have had so much disregard for the welfare of his wife & children.
The film seems to try to reconcile this - in the face of seeing his family pulling away - by painting Ferrell's character as not only disconnected/distracted, but by seeming to have an active disdain for his children. Maybe these scenes are believable to some, but to me they felt like contrivances in a film that portrays itself based in a reality. Is this a story of a father who's sacrificed his family for work? Is this a breakdown by a man who lost his father earlier in the year? We never quite get sense of why this is happening.
Ultimately this is solved via comedy - Ferrell getting drunk enough to admit his fear, and we come to realize what seemed like an existential threat to their marriage was really just a prolonged fight.
This is why the movie works for me. Spouses get into plenty of arguments, even some which seem more serious that really were because of moods or the way the parties handle communication post-incident - not the incident itself. Sometimes all it takes is a silly resolution to fix what seems like a serious fight, and that's about as close to reality as the movie gets.
The Hate U Give (2018)
Nice piece of storytelling, even if the story is a bit convenient.
Really strong film, well-acted & topical. I'd say the film has more value if viewed through the eyes of someone like its main character, or someone ignorant but open to learning.
The biggest flaw in the film is its series of contrivances, beginning with the film's turning point. An unwarranted police killing following a sweet moment of humanity, followed by a theme that suggests all such situations are similar. Killed over a hairbrush? You wouldn't find much, if any, dissent. As current events are teaching us, even the most ardent police supporters can't defend every one of these killings.
The white characters are largely not just ignorant, but actively racist. The black characters aren't just victims, they're entirely blameless. Police interactions aren't occasional and confrontational, they're constant and violent. The story's strength relies upon building from each of these pristine scenarios to deliver its emotional punch, but I don't think it needed to.
I enjoyed it, despite its heavy-handedness in its delivery. Clearly meant for teens, but my main takeaway was that even these contrivances may in fact just be the perspective of the black community, and that's an important lens to view it through.
House of Cards (2013)
Seasons 6: And unavoidable disappointment that still had a chance to be better
This review should be prefaced with the acknowledgement that most all deficiencies of this final season are the fault of Kevin Spacey. I understand the difficult situation the writers were put in. The whole "House of Cards" metaphor alludes to how easy it can all come crumbling down - and a sudden death is not comeuppance, at least in terms of serial television.
That said, the opportunity to move on from Frank Underwood was not seized upon here, the way you might think. Seeing the trailers, I was weary of a sudden "he's dead, moving along" vibe to the season. The worse alternative - the one we got - was that Frank Underwood's name, plans, schemes, and memory haunted nearly every scene of consequence, and while I think Robin Wright was fantastic in the ruthless role, she remained in the shadow of someone who wasn't there.
There are a few midseason "jump the shark" moments, and certain #MeToo elements seemed to leap from the plot in favor of not-so-subtle jabs at Spacey's indiscretions - appropriate in reality, but out of place here, and again kept the focus on Frank. And I'm still not sure how I feel about Claire's biggest presidential victory in the season, which was achieved by appearing overly emotional, weak, and incapacitated due to an inability to handle the job's stresses. It seemed counter to the message.
Other nitpicks: We're introduced to new antagonists - the Shephards - who apparently are longtime friends of the Underwoods, heavily involved in White House dealings, despite us never having heard of them. And Claire's fourth wall narrations are too prevalent, and sometimes intertwined with show dialogue, making it truly hard sometimes to understand what exactly she tells another character in a scene.
Reasons to stay: Doug Stamper's arc deserved to be finished. He's one of the only characters who appears in this season as if he existed in the other 5. Others include the familiar journalists' dogged pursuit to uncover the truth of the Underwoods' crimes.
Those, and a couple good twists make the 8-episode sprint worth finish - if you've invested years into this show. It deserved better than the destruction Spacey caused to it, but could have been better than what the writers pieced together from its rubble.
The Hunger Games (2012)
Entertaining movie. Absolutely worth the watch.
A movie based on a teen novel, hyped - and grouped - along with the likes of Twilight? I was absolutely closed-minded about this movie, and only rented it because I knew Bikini Spring Break wasn't a good choice for dinner-and-a-movie night with my wife (the RedBox was running thin). We were both pleasantly surprised!
Yes, it's a PG-13 movie, which probably took away from some of the reality, but the characters were well-developed, the concept was very intriguing, and my wife and I both found ourselves wrapped up in the Games. I forgive the writers of the teen novel for wishing to appeal to their demographic, leaving out some of the elements of gore.
I've read the other reviews, and was initially surprised that so many people gave low ratings (1s & 2s), but then I remembered two things: 1) People will think it's either the worst thing ever, or the best thing ever, & 2) This story was first a book, and it infuriates people if an adapted screenplay leaves out ANYTHING in the novel.
I haven't read the book, but I'm sure there's a lot missing from the movie. Consider, for example that the run time of the film is 2:22. The run time of the Hunger Games audiobook is 11:12. Is it not reasonable to expect that somewhere in those nine hours, a few bits of the story won't hit the pages of the movie script? No one is impressed that you're capable of reading, so there's no need to act like what you read is better than what I saw.
But to address specific themes/plot lines that people claim were missing:
I understood that the districts were left hungry - this was not missing, as some have claimed. Remember when Katniss smelled the bread at the beginning of the movie and said "Is this real?!" like it was a 24-carat diamond? Remember that the tension between she and Peeta stemmed from a wasted roll? If the complaint is that Jennifer Lawrence was not emaciated enough, that is a weak complaint.
It was made clear the oppression they all live under - which apparently some of the book-readers claim wasn't in the movie. Throughout the film, in every was possible, it is illustrated. In fact, it's explicitly addressed by Donald Sutherland's character when he talks about why there's winner: Hope. If the complaint is that there wasn't more to illustrate the tyranny, again, it is a weak complaint.
People claim that there was not enough developing of the relationship between Katniss and Rue. I disagree. Did we not see how Rue's death affected Katniss? Were there not multiple occasions when they worked together to kill the other tributes? Did they not play roles in protecting each other? Sure, you can claim that there may have been missing scenes, but to argue that their closeness was not illustrated is - again - a weak complaint.
I haven't - and probably won't - read the book. All that seems to do is create cynics, who want everything from their 11-hour read to fit into a 2-hour movie - and will consider it garbage if anything is missing. That's unfair, and this is coming from someone who discarded this series as crap before learning anything about it.
It's a fun film with an interesting concept, and I'll probably watch it again. Odds are I'll make an effort to catch the sequels, too. I'd strongly recommend this to anyone.