Chronic_Johnson

I should probably start by saying that I haven't read the book, and my only other exposure to "Dune" is the spicediver fan-edit of the 80s David Lynch film adaptation.

A lot of people don't like the Lynch movie, and I understand why; it's often goofy and poorly paced with a very rushed 2nd half. It's also supposedly not very faithful to the original novel, although a lot of story beats in this new adaptation from Denis Villeneuve do seem very similar to what I saw in the Lynch fan-edit. Villeneuve's movie is much better paced, and far less goofy though.

The pace is slow, the tone is serious and the atmosphere is thick (thanks largely due to the soundtrack which is very memorable and sounds incredible, aside from some typical Zimmer Inception horn cliches that need to be retired at this point).

Dune is often referred to as being something like "Game of Thrones in space", which comes across much better than it did in the Lynch version through the bloodthirsty politics and behind-the-scenes scheming of various members of different Family Houses, religious groups and even some characters' personal motivations. My favourite element to come out of this being that the lead protagonist, Paul Atreides, is having none of their BS.

I like this version of Paul Atreides much more than the David Lynch version. He doesn't like all the scheming, including that which is done by his own family, and while his character development is nothing particularly new, I do appreciate the depth put into his own personal beliefs and how this may go on to have conflicts with responsibilities he will later face.

Baron Harkonnen is also very imposing and a great villain to have on-screen. He's much more intimidating than the cartoonish take on the character in the Lynch movie, and I wish he had more screen-time.

In fact, the same can be said about a lot of characters in this movie, so hopefully we'll see a lot more in a Part 2, which absolutely needs to be greenlit.

Even so, I wouldn't say this film was all it was hyped up to be. For one, this is probably Villeneuve's weakest film, but only because this is a story that's been told before and it doesn't feel anywhere near as revolutionary as some of his previous projects, both on a technical and thematic level.

Newcomers to the Dune universe may falsely judge that the voice powers in the film are ripping off jedi mind tricks in Star Wars, even though the Dune novel came first. In fact, I'm sure a lot of comparisons to other major film franchises will be made. Hopefully this doesn't impact overall reception and lower chances of a sequel.

On repeat viewings, it may even become tedious to sit through many of the slower moments of the film that are more focused on providing great spectacle (that is bound to have much more impact in the cinema than on a TV or laptop screen) rather than telling a story or conveying a message. The cinematography, directing and acting are all brilliant, but occasionally border on wanky considering how familiar and simple the story is overall.

For all the hate that the David Lynch film received, even from Lynch himself, it did have some very unique effects and designs that - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse - will probably end up being much more recognizable than the very well-shot but also very plain, brown and grey imagery offered up by Villeneuve.

6.5/10, but leaning closer to a 6.

This gave me flashbacks to the Tom Hardy film, Locke. Both films only feature one setting, lots of phone calls and are carried by intense acting and rising stakes. It works very well, although some moments of The Guilty did take away from my immersion when the writing seems more interested in getting its messages across than maintaining realism.

It did reach a point where I thought the protagonist's behaviour was a bit over-the-top for someone working in his field, but as his personal issues are slowly revealed the viewer does get a solid reason for why he behaves the way he does. One line delivered to the protagonist by his superior near the end of the film did almost have me rolling my eyes, though.

It's worth watching for Jake Gyllenhaal's performance and the edge-of-your-seat plot developments, but it's far from Gyllenhaal's best role and it won't be making a "Best Movies of the Year" list for me.

I did like this movie's ending more than the ending for Locke, and if this film succeeded at anything, it succeeded in showing me that I'd never have what it takes to work as an emergency call-taker.

7/10.

I was looking forward to this one, as I have an interest in and enjoy analysing my own dreams and thinking about how they reflect on my waking life. The technology in the film that allows researchers to capture video images of dreams is something that actually exists in the real world and is being studied (albeit not to the extent it has reached in this movie), so the set-up for the story is a great concept to explore. I liked the creepy atmosphere and the imagery of the dream scenes. I also thought the film would have some depth to it when I noticed it has "chapters" named after psychological concepts.

Unfortunately, it quickly devolves into horror cliches that don't really go anywhere or have any point as well as a completely unearned, somewhat uncomfortable love scene.

Also, without giving too much away, the film ends on a meme I saw floating around on social media several years ago, and it's delivered with a serious tone. I'm not joking. It seems they were going for a shocking plot-twist but all it made me do was sigh.

4/10.

One of my biggest fears is losing my hearing. This film handles the subject incredibly well. Provides perspective with moments of terror, anger, frustration, desperation and peace.

It easily deserves awards for sound design and acting. Riz Ahmed was great in Nightcrawler, and he's even better here.

Easily recommended if the topic interests you and you're in the mood for a drama.

7/10.

Something feels inauthentic in how this is presented. Many scenes are set up in a way where information they receive seems too convenient. There are a lot of cuts, a lot of things that are said to have happened but weren't caught on camera, but we are expected to believe.

That said, I don't doubt how corrupt and disgusting the soviet system was and how that has in some ways continued to exist into the current day. This documentary just feels a bit unfocused and really tries to rely on a conspiracy theory for which not enough evidence is provided (though it is reasonable to assume that this evidence has been thoroughly covered up by the powers that be). There could be truth to it, or it could all be made up for sensationalism. It's hard to say.

The film could have benefited from focusing more on the details of the presenter's family history where his grandparents were sent to the gulags, the terrible things that happened to them and the various mass starvations caused by the soviet regime. It's in the film, but I feel it should have been elaborated upon much more. This could have then been shown in parallel to the fairly recent 2014 protests in Ukraine that resulted in deaths of hundreds of those protesters (which is really the most impactful element of the film, other than a few suspicious answers given during some of the interviews). The idea in the film that remnants of the Soviet Union are still alive and well and continue to be responsible for ongoing atrocities is a valid and important one to get across. I just don't think it was handled particularly well.

Even the official story of what happened at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, acknowledged by the Russian government, shows how incompetent and reprehensible the government was in their handling of the disaster. The film probably would have been taken more seriously and overall been more effective if they looked at things from this angle.

The Soviet Union and any government today, really, are without a doubt unworthy of trust. But I'm just not entirely convinced that I should trust the makers of this film, either.

5/10.

I haven't enjoyed a new Pixar movie this much since the early 2000s, and this might be tied with Monsters Inc as my all-time favourite Pixar film. It's no coincidence that both films share the same writer and director (see also: Up, Inside Out, Toy Story).

I could spend plenty of time talking about how good the animation looks, and it does look great, but even then, that's the least impressive element at play here. What shines most is the film's writing.

Something that Disney and Pixar seem to have been suffering with for some time now is managing to come up with a story that feels new and original (with some exceptions, mostly by the same director), and while there are plenty of borrowed ideas to be found in Soul, they all come together to form something that's really a breath of fresh air.

As someone who pursues music as a hobby, but is also plagued by not knowing what I'm doing with my life half of the time, I could relate to both of the lead characters in the film. What one character struggles with and learns from another, and vice-versa, felt like many ongoing internal back-and-forths I've had with myself. Plenty of scenes hit hard. But you don't need to be a musician or have any enjoyment of jazz music to relate to this film. It has a message that a much wider audience can, and for many, probably should receive. There are a variety of different ways in which we may not be valuing our own lives. Sometimes we get too trapped in our own head's and are stubbornly ignorant to our need for a change of perspective. This movie doesn't offer answers on "purpose" or the "meaning of life", but it does provide perspective. Which is probably better.

And to top it all off, the original score (aside from the jazz music) was done by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. I didn't know it was them until I saw it in the end credits. But some of the more somber moments featuring piano, and the more electronic tracks that create a fairly digital soundscape for certain scenes somewhat feel like a mix of Sigur Ros and the more ambient NIN instrumentals. The film has plenty of emotional impact, and the soundtrack plays an important part in that.

There were things that annoyed me, at first. Mainly in the comic-relief aspects of 22's character. Some visual gags and Family Guy-esque flashback jokes based around this character were irritating, but both of these end up paying off when they come up again later, in a much more mature and poignant manner. In fact, as the runtime goes by, the less jokey it seems to get in tone. A character I started off hating ended up being a favourite, and this rarely happens for me. Some of the best character development and chemistry between a small cast of characters in any Pixar movie. Both children and adults definitely have something to gain from watching this, but I'd almost argue that this one will have more of a lasting impression on adults. Highly recommended.

8/10.

Very memorable soundtrack, and the black and white combined with the grainy image works very well for putting you in a similar head-space as the the protagonist.

Every scene had me hooked, I always wanted to know where it was going next.

Even though the plot somewhat revolves around mathematics, it's not difficult to follow and it's more of a character study about someone who can't see the forest for the trees. Obsession, paranoia, extreme introversion. It's more about these things than maths.

8/10.

Just like Inception, and even Memento (though Memento handles it better), Tenet has a fairly simple and generic plot, held up higher than it otherwise would have been by an interesting concept and brilliant visual storytelling. The sequences that involve time inversion are incredible to watch, and it genuinely left me wondering how they achieved it behind the scenes.

I'm glad I waited for a home-media release so that I could watch this with subtitles. Nolan's growing notoriety for terrible sound mixing is not exaggerated. That said, the soundtrack is pretty decent, and despite not being composed by Hans Zimmer, it does sound fairly reminiscent of other work Zimmer has done for Nolan's films in the past. You barely notice it wasn't him.

I'd rather re-watch this movie than Inception, but I would say that Inception is a slightly better film, mainly due to its characters and their backgrounds. Tenet is just less of a snooze-fest to sit through, despite suffering from similar exposition scenes that will grow more and more irritating on future viewings.

It's well-paced, competently written and acted (no real stand out performances, but no bad ones either), but the main reason to watch this movie would be its cinematography and editing.

It's a shame that this pandemic has resulted in this movie bombing in cinemas, because aside from the fact that subtitles are almost necessary to sit through this film, it would have been a very impressive spectacle on the big screen.

6/10.

A collection of Black Mirror-style short films, each themed around the Hong Kong independence issue.

Each of them hit home with solid points. Not one bad short in the bunch. Though, the 2nd one was difficult for me to understand on first viewing. I'm not sure if this is one that people from Hong Kong would have a better chance of understanding, or if it was just ambiguous and artsy for the sake of it.

While some of the shorts are heavily dramatized, the truth behind them are not at all exaggerated.

This came out in 2015 and is set during times between then and 2025. We're halfway there in 2020 now, and we can already see both Hong Kong and even my home-country, Australia, heading down this very dark path.

It is depressing to watch, for the majority of it. And it has every reason to be. But it ends with a small glimmer of hope.

People need to pay attention, and stop things from getting worse before it's too late. And though it may seem as though it is too late for Hong Kong, the film would like you to think otherwise.

Don't get used to crazy changes happening in the world, when these changes don't have to happen.

And no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, we could all benefit from thinking before following blindly.

Shorts ranked:

1. Self-Immolator - 9/10

2. Dialect - 9/10

3. Local Egg - 9/10

4. Extras - 8/10

5. Season of the End - ?/10

9/10.

I've heard a few Brainiac songs here and there, but never fully got into them. Seeing this definitely has me interested in not only checking out their entire discography (which was tragically short-lived), but also has given me that drive to continue working on my own music on another one of those days I otherwise would have slept away.

It's always interesting to see where life takes people after unexpected tragedy (death of the frontman) sends people off in different directions.

Brief appearances from the great Steve Albini, as well as David Yow of the Jesus Lizard and Buzz Osbourne of The Melvins. Great visual effects paired with band footage and plenty of their songs. Very cool.

8/10.

The set up for this film is long and not particularly interesting. The protagonist often narrates poetry that I didn't care for, and everything before the long tracking-shot felt boring and not anywhere near as compelling as the film that the director, Bi Gan, would go on to direct (Long Day's Journey into Night).

But everything from that long tracking-shot up to and including the ending (what a final shot!) is something unlike anything I've ever experienced before in film. Like a future or long-past memory being made and enacted in real-time.

We follow a handful of characters as they move about a small town in rural China, the camera switching seamlessly between them in an act of mesmerizing cinematography, no matter how they are travelling or however relevant they may seem to be to the mediocre plot. As this happens, we begin to familiarize ourselves with the location almost to the point that we could map it out, if we had to. You start to feel as though this town is a place you have actually (but only briefly) visited as a tourist who will go on to look back on the time spent there with bittersweet nostalgia. The people, the place. All of it. It has a personality of its own, but calls upon some of your own memories of places and people you remember well, but don't truly know all that well. Just as a tourist would remember but not know the people and places from his transient experiences with them.

Never have I felt so much of a connection to a location in a film, to the point where it practically feels like a real-life experience of my own.

All this might sound very wanky, which is something I was going to accuse the film of being until it reached this part of the film. It won't be the kind of movie that everyone will enjoy, and I'm not even sure I can recommend it.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the film's overall message. And I'm not even quite sure I want to, as it may take away from my very personal journey that it took me on. I probably won't even re-watch this film. Just as you can't relive memories so vividly. That said, just like Bi Gan's more recent film (Long Day's Journey into Night), it clearly plays around with the ideas of memory and dreams. Though I think Kaili Blues is more of a challenge to understand, with all the wanky poetry, cultural differences and references to "wild-men" urban legends.

Some great films can be ruined by a scene, whereas other films such as this, could be elevated from mediocrity to something fresh, exciting and beyond words.

Overall, Long Day's Journey into Night is a far better structured film, with a much more interesting protagonist and plot, but the flawed masterpiece of Kaili Blues manages to achieve something far more significant in its last 55 minutes (that goes by as quickly as a memory of a dream), than most films can hope to achieve in their entirety.

Bi Gan is a director worth the attention.

Kaili Blues - 8/10. Long Day's Journey into Night - 7/10.

Alongside Apocalypse Now and Dunkirk, this is a very visually stunning war film, but much better than the latter of those two. Probably my third favourite film in the genre (behind Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter).

There's not much I can fault this film on, other than a few small nitpicks about occasional conveniences that just so happen to pan out for the main character and some of the people he encounters. While it never crossed over into propaganda territory, I do think the German soldiers were excessively written as savages. It could have been to the movie's benefit to have at least one scene that humanizes BOTH sides of the war.

The film can also drag in some scenes, with lots of lingering shots that look fantastic but could be a nuisance on repeat viewings. And that's just it. The best element of the film is that the whole thing is practically one long lingering shot, and this can also, intermittently, be seen as its weakness. But this is all just nitpicking. While I might have spent a lot of time writing about the negatives, this shouldn't take away from the fact that if you've ever enjoyed a war movie, then this is a must-see.

It's very immersive, largely due to the cinematography, but even the conversations that characters have in the more mellow moments feel quite realistic. While the plot isn't particularly a point of interest, you do grow to care about some of the characters. 2014's Birdman did a similar thing with the "one-shot" aesthetic, and while I enjoyed the characters and themes of that film more than 1917, it's 1917 that I think has a more justified and immersive usage of the style.

7/10.

While it suffers from a fairly cliche plot template, this film looks great and has a nice style that modernizes the noir genre while maintaining the usual time period. It's very well directed, filmed and acted. The jazz soundtrack is also a character of its own. I love films that give off "neurotic loner in New York" vibes, and this has a decent amount of that. It won an award for Art Direction and Production Design, and I can see why. Many nominations for the soundtrack too, among other things.

The tourettes stuff might be annoying for some, but I think it's respecting in its portrayal, while still offering the occasional moment of humour. Though, this isn't a funny movie and never was intended as one, it's a mystery drama through and through.

The writing is clearly the weakest aspect, mostly because this is a type of story that has been told many times, just with slightly different characteristics. But this would be of no fault to director, writer and actor Edward Norton as the story is based upon a novel that came out in the late 90s. I'm not sure why he wanted to adapt this to film, as it would inevitably suffer from feeling like something that's been done too many times before. But he does a great job with what it is. I cannot overstate how much I liked the aesthetic of this film. Not only what is shown on screen, but the aspect ratio that makes it look like something shot in the 70s by Coppola or Scorsese, but with a much more crisp image that makes the format look even more impressive (not unlike Joker's format).

One small issue I noticed is that nobody in 1957 seems to know what tourettes is, yet it was discovered 72 years earlier in 1885. Maybe it just wasn't widespread knowledge? Or maybe it's just poor writing? Not sure.

If you're fine with a dated narrative, but everything else appeals to or interests you, it's worth a watch. It's not even close to being a masterpiece, but it has style and Edward Norton, Willem Dafoe, Michael Kenneth Williams, Gugu Mbatha-Raw and even Alec Baldwin (who I don't care for as an actor) all put in worthwhile performances.

6/10.

Most of this documentary contains information that was already widely known and available. There's little new to be learned here. The only elements that interested me were the discussions about O'Bannon's writing process and how the film was allowed to be made at all. But it's weakest aspects are when a few talking heads try to attach more political meaning to the film than there is evidence for.

I'm well aware that the film is looked at as being sexually symbolic. Particularly of discomfort around rape. But when an excessively stern feminist started talking about how the Android, Ash, only tried to stop Ripley the way he did, to "put her in her place" and be a typical "misogynist", I almost had to stop watching the documentary.

Yeah, the robot is a misogynist. Sure. He wasn't just doing what he had to do, due to his programming, to ensure that he could bring the alien creature alive back to earth. (Just a hint of sarcasm there)

Yes, he was a villain, and yes there are some political agendas that you could probably ascribe to the company's decision to bring the alien back without knowing how dangerous it is. The sequel was even more explicit with this. But calling the programming of a robot character "misogynistic" is not only bizarre, but also not in any way evident in the film. Let's not forget he attacked other members of the crew (including a male). His methods were far more likely because he wanted to quietly dispose of Ripley as a threat without drawing unneeded attention. Obviously this didn't work out, but that's irrelevant.

I know it's 2019, but you don't have to tack on an in-your-face political message in everything. The film already has a strong female lead, that continued to be so throughout the franchise. That should be enough to satisfy egalitarians and most reasonable feminists. Either way, Alien is just a movie. A damn good one, but nothing more than that.

Give it a break. And give this documentary a miss, unless you don't already know a decent amount about the making of the film, in which case you'll get most of it here.

Joker is brilliantly directed, written, acted and shot. It's the clown-world meme bred with Taxi Driver, and it works well, especially so as a standalone film (I hope they DON'T make more films in this universe). My only issues with this movie are that there are perhaps one or two too many slow dance scenes that may decrease it's re-watchability (not to mention the shocks, tense scenes and twists in the plot won't be as effective), and I'm not a big fan of how even after the character is fully transformed into his "Joker" persona, he still seems to express his sadness over how he's been treated by society, when, by this point, you'd think it would be more Joker-esque for him to view everything as a comedy and only laugh at all the absurdity in the world. He just still seemed a little too bitter and self-pitying at the end for my liking. That said, it's still one of the best comic-book movies out there, mostly because of how gritty, dark and unalike your average superhero/villain movie it is. I'd certainly like to see more films like this.

Ahead of seeing the movie, I read enough about it to be excited for its Taxi Driver elements, but concerned about how pretentious it could be. My concerns turned out to be mostly unfounded. Despite some minor character-related issues. 7/10.

It's decently acted, shot, directed and written, for what it is. I think the reason why a lot of people are rating this so low is because it's an odd John Travolta performance that some snowflakes might even be offended by. That, and because it's directed and written by Fred Durst, who also seems to get a lot more hate than he deserves. I actually enjoyed the film well enough. It isn't a long film, it didn't overstay its welcome, and there are moments of various genres in this film, that all come together pretty well. Drama, comedy, thriller. It's by no means a masterpiece, but rating it any lower than a 5 is pretty absurd. A decent film to sit around with friends and laugh at how ridiculous the whole thing is, how unlikable almost all the characters are, but, at the same time, somewhat relatable (just highly exaggerated). It's an easy 6 for me.

2 (8/10) > 1 (7/10) > 3 (6/10). Action scenes and cinematography were fantastic, but each new movie gets less and less believable with the world it creates. I enjoyed all of the films a lot, but 3 started to drag on a bit too much and became very repetitive. I was hoping this would be the last John Wick movie, and it felt like it should have been, but unfortunately at the end there's just more sequel-baiting and a far more ridiculous cliffhanger than the one in the 2nd film (which has a brilliant cliffhanger, imo, and really set up that the 3rd film could mean the end of John Wick). The 2nd one overall just has my favourite scenes, and these films are more about the amazing action sequences and visuals, rather than any engrossing story, making it all the more annoying that they've just stretched out the story for another sequel.

Also, John's motives in this film felt poorly written this time around. He wants to live on so that he can remember his dead wife? I get that he's still grieving but it comes across as lame and unnatural motivation. It doesn't matter if he's alive to remember her, because he'll die eventually anyway, and just going about the rest of his life moping around about his dead wife is pointless. The acting was also at its worst in this film.

Come for the great action and visuals, but spend every other scene cringing at everything else and leave the cinema feeling a bit "meh" about the whole experience.