dtcwee

Cassandra has a strange hobby.

She pretends to be drunk in nightclubs, waits for a 'nice guy' to take her home and, when he attempts to take advantage of her, drops the charade and confronts him.

This film was not the cringey, heavy-handed #MeToo parable I was expecting. It is very watchable and nuanced even as it demands little attention.

A lot of credit goes to Carey Mulligan, whose portrayal of Cassandra is sometimes endearing, sometimes prickly, sometimes vulnerable, but always compelling.

Her co-stars give a lot to work with, notably smug trad-wife Alison Brie, 'Doctor Decency' Bo Burnham, and anguished lawyer Alfred Molina.

The production is unsettling in its simplicity. There are almost no extras to distract from the intensity between cast. Danger can also be found in warm and pastel colours.

The script is also deceptively simple, but telling in what it omits (e.g. Victims, flashbacks). The ending may seem unexpected.

But then again, so is sexual assault.

Unless of course you tell yourself she was asking for it.

Born to a Thai gangster mother after an affair with an expatriate Yakuza member, Zin is an autistic waif savant with super-human reflexes, senses, mimicry, and fear of flies.

Faced with her ailing mother's mounting hospital bills, Zin and her adopted brother Moom find her mother's loan book and go about collecting monies owed from businessman debtors, overcoming their reluctance by causing gratuitous workplace injuries.

Director Prachya Pinkaew has learned from the bloated Tom Yung Goong and gone back to basics. The story, though tortuous, is tighter. More effort is spent on composition, colour, and allowing every character a chance to shine.

Zin's strong-but-loving mother (Ammara Siripong) is given a full backstory with Hiroshi Abe, which pays off later. Moom is the annoying chubby sidekick (a Pinkaew trademark) who redeems himself through novel solutions. Perhaps this sharing of plot was due to doubts that JeeJa Yanin (Zin) could carry a movie like Tony Jaa.

Those misgivings are completely unfounded as Yanin is amazing at drawing and holding empathy despite her character's jerky movement and laser glare.

That is perhaps one of many happy accidents among clear weaknesses. The mood shifts from dreamy Asian cinema in which sentimental slow-mo is abused, to cheap Kung-Fu arena. The sound design is spotty. Editing introduces continuity errors rather than removing them. A grander vision would have made these shortcomings more pronounced.

The film delivers its promise of a non-communicative girl delivering elbows to heads. However, you also get what could easily have been overlooked: a decent story, likeable characters, and solid filmwork.

Kham (Tony Jaa) comes from a village of royal elephant 'protectors'. When his elephant and calf are stolen - I'm not sure by whom, triads, Aussie bogans, or chefs - he sets out to give the horde of kidnappers their well-deserved violent chiropractic adjustments.

Bigger in every way than its predecessor, Ong Bak, The Protector (originally: Tom Yum Goong) loses its focus frequently, with jarring cuts and putting spectacle over coherence. The longest single-take fight scene is impressive, but tiring, and lends nothing to the story. The dated CG dream sequences seem purposeless.

As for the characters and sub-plots, there's gangsters, sure, but also police politicking, and a Game-Of-Thrones mafia struggle in the mix. The middle of the film is aimless.

Thankfully, the elephants return to drive the emotional and action-packed final chapter.

The fight choreography makes up for most of the film's shortcomings. While some sequences seem repetitive, at a 1 hour 30 minute run time, nothing gets a chance to overstay its welcome.

Professional thieves and assassins are brutally pitted against each other on a bullet train from Tokyo to Kyoto.

Expecting a dumb action romp from stuntman-turned-director David Leitch, I particularly enjoyed Bullet Train because of what it borrowed from other movies, and what it left alone.

It's the action of John Wick without the paranoid gravitas of a world where everyone is a contract killer.

It's the black gangland humour of Pulp Fiction but with controlled monologues that don't go off the rails.

It's the freewheeling serendipity of a Guy Ritchie movie taken out of the English drabness into stylised neon Asian noir.

While Brad Pitt well deserved the longest screen time, and all cast were amazing, the standout has to be Sanada Hiroyuki who transcended his usual stoic samurai role to provide some perfect comedic timing.

At over 2 hours long, Bullet train also has room for characters to display grief and musings on how to process misfortune and malice. The surreal visuals support the notion of the train, its orderly route belying its in-cabin chaos, as a metaphor for life.

Which would make it not just a pain train, but a brainy one too.

While Michael B. Jordan and the late Chadwick Boseman stole the show in the first Black Panther, every cast member in this sequel delivers an amazing performance.

Letitia Wright in the main role delivers the most range, from grief to fury, far from the cocky savant in other Marvel movies.

Angela Basset is supposed to be a queen, but amps it up to Goddess.

Danai Gurira takes haughty warrior to the next level, and navigates it through a fairly dramatic arc.

The less-melanin-endowed - Tenoch Huerta, Martin Freeman, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus - also bring their a-game, dropping lines like bombs throughout.

Everyone has so much swagger that those with slightly less screen time, like Winston Duke, Dominique Thorne, and Lupita Nyong'o are drowned out or do not get the development they deserve.

There are so many important characters that some disappear for big chunks of the film. Wakanda Forever, at 2 hours 40 minutes could have been 2 films, though I was never bored.

It's a pity that the great performances are poorly supported by forgettable dialogue and clumsy plotting.

Even with that handicap, the actors go beyond having chemistry to be more like pieces of flint striking each other and giving off sparks. The tension is picked up by decent camera work, zoom, and framing.

Which brings me the worst part for me. The 2:39 extra-wide aspect ratio is best suited to wide Imax vistas, of which the movie has very few. When used on ensemble dramas, the cropping of characters becomes distractingly clear as does the empty space to the sides. (I kept checking my TV settings to see if they were the problem.) It's even wrong for the battle sequences, which instead of being wide line clashes play out vertically, on tall structures or surface-to-sky.

Despite these difficulties, Wakanda Forever is full of actors and characters I would love to see again.

"Uhambe" for now.

I delayed watching this film, seeing as how it has become appropriated as some sort of edge-lord anthem.

That hijacking is as tragic as Joker itself, as the movie and its execution is complex, layered, and masterful. Ironic that it would be so misunderstood by the self-proclaimed misunderstood.

Joaquin Phoenix is in almost every scene as the hapless Arthur Fleck, who searches for identity in dysfunctional 1981 Gotham. The actor's transformation is a sight to behold.

Plenty has been written about the lead's amazing performance, so I will mention other aspects that stood out:

The costume and set design really brought me back to the 1980s when every night on the news made it seem like cities were trying to convince themselves that they weren't tearing themselves apart.

The writing and editing produced a gripping story, masterfully paced.

Don't let the resentful steal Joker from you.

This movie does a lot to lower your expectations before you start watching.

Ensemble animal cast. (rolls eyes) Heist premise. (rolls eyes) Experimental matte texturing, following the ground broken by Spiderman Spiderverse. (rolls eyes) Title being a clear nod to a popular Billie Eilish song. (rolls eyes)

Wolf (Sam Rockwell), Snake (Marc Maron), Tarantula (Awkwafina), Shark (Craig Robinson), and Piranha (Anthony Ramos) are the titular 'Bad Guys', animals assumed to villainous, so of course they engage in villainy. They soon get their chance to go straight after a bungled heist.

While the design of the 'animal' characters are novel, the 'people' are clearly derived from the wide-eyed excited looks from Toriyama Akira (Dragonball Z) manga. Unfortunately, though the matte shading is slick, it doesn't always suit fur.

From the opening diner scene, crammed with charisma and shades of Pulp Fiction, this movie becomes so much more.

The action is almost unrelenting, to the point that the slowdown in pace for the necessary pauses are noticeably jarring. Watch out though, some are only to set up running gags that do pay off.

Not that it ever drags. At just over one and a half hours, there seems barely enough time for all the twists, and unfortunately some plot elements are not well explained.

Despite its descent into crazy, this remains to its end a crew heist movie, and a very entertaining one at that.

Can I just say though, that the soundtrack is BANGING! The Black Keys, Chemical Brothers, The Heavy, and how the action syncs better than Baby Driver, will make you hope that the Bad Guys take on one more job.

I never got into the TV show.

I LOLed at the trailer on YouTube, and when my spouse rolled their eyes and sneered in disgust, I knew I had to watch the movie.

It's rapid-fire stunt after stunt after stunt. Some set-ups are funny, some cringe-y. All outrageous. All out there.

But not novel.

Because they hit you with the replays of them doing the same pranks a decade or so ago.

These charismatic chaps have been enthusiastically maiming themselves the same way since the internet started being a thing.

I don't know about you, but I went from laughing with them to feeling kind of sorry for them.

"I can go as low as you, sir, and that's saying something." - Bradley 'Rooster' Bradshaw Aging-Lieutenant Pete 'Maverick' Mitchell (Tom Cruise) from Top Gun 1 is head-hunted from his day job crashing test planes to prepare a group of the best young navy fighter pilots for a suicide mission, because someone decided that only he can help them not crash.

The student becoming the teacher is pretty much the only intelligent inversion in this film.

Imagine the final act of Star Wars A New Hope, from the briefing to the trench run.

Now stretch that bad boy out to two hours.

That's Top Gun: Maverick.

To be fair, it's also two hours of smirky macho one-upmanship. Great flying sequences, but maybe the combat training would go smoother if everyone stopped comparing their Johnsons every two minutes.

Two hours of women used only as wise-woman emotional-support cheerleaders.

Two hours of Maverick impulsively saving people from impulsive decisions by teaching them to act more impulsively. This recklessness - dare I say 'Maverick nature' - seemingly permeates the environment.

The premise itself of using cadets to conduct a half-baked pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation is impulsiveness on a strategic and political scale (WMDs, anyone?). Let's go full-meta and inquire as to where the decision to make this unasked-for sequel came from.

Two hours of millennials dressing like their grandparents and rocking out to music made 50 years before they were born. We get it. It's a tribute. Please stop thwacking us over the head with it.

The sad thing is not that so much was unthought-through.

The sad thing is that impulsiveness led to so much waste.

Jennifer Connelly is wasted as the torch-carrying single-mum.

Glen Powell and Monica Barbaro are wasted as supposedly pivotal squadron members who are sidelined as soon as they spur the protagonists' character development.

Ed Harris is wasted as the hard-ass Admiral, whose ominous drone program I swore would feature later on.

Eight of the twelve pilots - including my fave Manny Jacinto - are wasted, as nothing they do matters, and the story only focuses on a few, especially Maverick's son-figure.

The biggest waste was the potential for Maverick to pass the torch graciously to the next generation. (Top Gun Cinematic Universe let's gooooo!)

Psych! He impulsively takes the torch and heads for the mountain.

Ultimately, everybody loves Maverick, much as they snark about it. Admirals bail him out. Jilted exes float back. Juniors he betrayed risk their lives to prove themselves to him.

The mountain does go to Maverick, our boomer aviator in aviators, almost proving that the world does in fact revolve around him.

After reading tepid reviews and ratings I prepared myself for overexposure to the Thor:Ragnarok goofy humour.

And yes, it is there in spades, but I kept waiting for Thor:Love and Thunder to suck until after the post-credits scenes. It didn't. I freaking loved it.

Added to the awkward banter is Russel Crowe's cringy impression of Greek god Zeus. However, look a little deeper and you'll see that it is masterfully held back from being offensive.

That's the thing about T:L&T. There's a lot hidden under the awkwardness. From a director who refuses to treat superheroes with reverence comes an irreverent study of love.

What happens when love is betrayed, lost, denied, or is not what we expect? Can you love a memory? An object? What about an object with a sense of humour and great timing?

Well, it seems, what happens is that love changes. It adapts. Not always in healthy ways, but it can change from those too.

In terms of performances, Christian Bale turns a minor role up to eleven. That's not to say the rest of the cast are slouches. They really do share the confusion, doubt, and relief of their characters.

If you didn't like the movie the first time, I urge you to rewatch it with 'love' in mind.

Could the people who made Guns 'n' Roses cool again since 'Terminator 2' really make a dud?

Max, captured and used as a human blood bag for a post-apocalyptic warlord's mutant soldier, is literally dragged into a desert chase for said warlord's general, who is absconding with the warlord's wives.

Let's shout nonsensical, mispronounced phrases at each other in a coarse Australian accent, and call it dialogue.

"Witness me!" "Shiny and chrome!"

'Gasoline' becomes 'guzzoline'. My, that will shock audiences.

It seems that everyone in the future is sniffing the scarce petrol they are fighting over. And it makes them oh, so macho.

Overlook the dialogue that seems to have been written by 1970s boys trying to shock their English teachers, and you have a very decent film.

The tension is constant. Character development is well distributed. Yes, Max (Tom Hardy) is just a foil for the others: Furiosa (Theron), the wives, and even Nux (Hoult). I do like it when hero's journeys have many heroes.

Colour is used well, there are a few well executed twists and turns.

Finally, I would thoroughly recommend the PG version. Why? Violence and death are tastefully implied, without the gore that would distract from the film's moments of tender connection.

Minus gruesome displays (that I was expecting but thankfully did not see), a story shines through of innocence escaping cruelty, becoming heroism.

Double-crosses by higher-ups - check.

Secret USB drives - check.

Avowedly neutral hero suddenly finding themselves with a price on their heads - check.

Young girl hostage - check.

Complex relationship with mentors - check.

Breakneck location-hopping - check.

With so many action espionage tropes to shepherd, it's no surprise that the Gray Man, though starting very strong, fails to stick the landing.

Leads Gosling and Evans are charismatic, if shallow.

However, it's clear that much effort was made to cram safe names into the supporting cast. Billy Bob Thornton, Alfre Woodard, Regge Jean Page, and Jessica Henwick beef up their roles.

De Armas was a similarly conservative choice for leading lady given her proven chemistry with the leads.

So it is baffling that similar caution was not used when developing the plot.

It is entertaining, well shot, well acted, and well paced, but if you are after satisfying conclusions, this film will frustrate you.

On a cold Christmas Eve night in Tokyo, three homeless people rummaging for scraps find an abandoned baby girl. They resolve to reunite baby 'Kiyoko' with her mother. Unexpected chaos ensues.

This being a Satoshi Kon movie, I was expecting some grotesque madness a la 'Perfect Blue' and 'Paprika'. However, this being Satoshi Kon movie, I was faked out as the dread and dourness turned into charm.

I am so glad I saw this AFTER the acclaimed Manbiki Kazoku (Shoplifters). Whereas Shoplifters is also precipitated by the finding of a young girl, it is uneventful poverty-porn in comparison. Tokyo Godfathers has a plot, twists, and even a car chase or two.

Most importantly, it subverts the tragic ending so associated with movies about disadvantage. There are strong shades of Capra-esque serendipity ('It's A Wonderful Life'') in how the story unfolds.

The three leads are very distinct, with the rubber-faced transvestite Hana, grim Gin, and 'normal' Miyuki seemingly animated by different teams.

The 2003 Tokyo in this film is still recognisable almost 20 years on. So too will Tokyo Godfathers age as well as Christmas.

If director Jason Reitman learned one thing from the poor-performing Ghostbusters 2016 reboot it is this:

If you want to steer a franchise in a new direction, you'd better bribe fans with enough easter eggs and nostalgia.

This would have been daunting because Ghostbusters 1 & 2 (1984 & 1989) were about thwarting evil while at its heart, Ghostbusters (2021) adds a layer about healing wounds.

The wounds are deep. The intro shows the death of a major character at the hands of a spectral enemy. After the title sequence, the story is taken up by their family, who feel they were abandoned and know not why.

The chemistry between all cast members makes this work. You know this family will come together because they *are* together. There is so much heart that it takes Ghostbusters well beyond the original four's slapstick and snarky banter.

While this is an ensemble effort, special mention needs go to McKenna Grace, who turns what could have been an obnoxious kid character into someone worth paying attention to, though difficult to be around.

Credit should also go to the script and editing, both of which result in a film that is fast-paced and polished, and I marvel at how well what happens on screen - reflections in windows, bite marks on street signs - *show* what must be going through characters' heads.

The new Ghostbusters are precocious, diverse, and indeed neuro-diverse children, lacking street-smarts in a small town where there is one main street. While some may not welcome this departure from the original flippant white lab-coated male scientists, it should be noted that Egon, Ray, Peter, and Winston were the cerebral opposites in their day to the square-jawed action heroes of other Hollywood films, such as First Blood and Terminator.

Unfortunately, this past gets in the way. There is a lot of nostalgia in the film to love, like the music and the neon-bright energy streams. But so much prominence is given to the original four's legacy that story is discarded to accommodate them. The stakes are never raised. New villains and heroes are sidelined. Even the post-credits leave doubt as to whether the baton has really been passed.

The price of paying the demanded deference seems to have been to only half embark towards something independent and fresh. I hope there is a sequel to continue that journey.

Bustin' makes me feel good.

First off, just watch it.

Others have written the same praises I have about this film, so I'll just bring a few new points.

1. Clearly, Edgar Wright wants to do a James Bond movie. However, with his mastery of mirrors and choreography, he should be made to do a Doctor Strange first.

2. A protagonist character that goes through ups and downs was missing from Baby Driver, but is thankfully very present here. It gives such substance to the style that flaws in story can be overlooked.

3. What flaws in story? Some of the visions may seem over-dramatic, but they are visions. You see (and hear music) through the eyes and ears of the characters.

What did I NOT like about the film? The subject matter is confronting and left me, like the protagonist, not want to keep watching. I am glad I did, though, as the twist was well thought-out and brought to a satisfying conclusion.

So buy, rent, or otherwise watch Last Night in Soho.

Everyone's waiting for you...

A team of superpowered Eternals are sent to earth in 5000BC by a Celestial god to safeguard humanity against monstrous Deviants.

Controversial opinion: The solution to the mess that is Eternals ... is more Eternals. This should have been a TV series.

I came to this conclusion as I took in Eternals over several sittings, wishing that they'd fleshed things out more.

The actors are stiff and aloof because they're playing immortal super beings who are stiff and aloof, if not jaded, without ever showing us how and why they get that way.

Throughout the film the Eternals talk about the various falling outs and reconciliations they inflict upon each other over the ages.

It would have been great to see some of these alliances and betrayals take place, and watch as their ideals get slowly eroded or modified.

Instead, cast and crew had the unenviable task of jamming seven millennia of backstory into two and a half hours, in a way that at least made some sense. I concur with the reviewer who likened this compressed disappointment to Watchmen the movie.

Eternals also squandered the potential to build up massive questions about death, remembrance, duty, and trade-offs.

The art design theme of golden thread and circles, apparently based on astrolabes, is amazing. Scenes range from small and intimate to planetary. The pacing is often ponderous and somber. At these points, Eternals reminds me of a contemporaneous release: Villeneuve's Dune. However, I had more fun with Eternals as the Marvel habit of adding a wisecrack here and there stopped the dourness from getting boring.

And unlike Dune, I think I would not have minded seeing more.

A drug bust goes awry when five expert gunmen kill both criminals and police, and make off with the drugs and money.

Benny Chan's last movie borrows from cops and robbers movies everywhere including Heat, Infernal Affairs, and Hard Boiled. There's even a stylistic shout out to the greasy hair and erratic behaviour of the Joker. The resulting mash-up should be a mess, but great story pacing and action scenes save it. It's action packed and enjoyable, with backstory exposed gradually. Just don't overanalyse it.

Nicholas Tse steals the show as the damaged villain, hounded by the bland veteran policeman played by Donny Yen.

The story suffers because of the hero's lack of character arc. Blame the need for clear goodies and baddies.

Notably using Cantonese instead of Mandarin, and slick but blatant moralising, this movie delivers the local PR boost the Hong Kong Police needs in 2020.

In Candyman (1992) an academic gets drawn into researching an urban legend about a supernatural killer, unwittingly aiding it.

In Candyman (2021) a painter gets drawn into researching an urban legend about the academic.

This movie assumes you have watched all the other Candymans. (Candymen?) It does not hold your hand. It is full of reference to the previous movies and to real-world social justice issues.

There's also shadow puppets and a laundromat.

And so you will find yourself drawn into researching the movie about a painter researching an academic ... blah blah blah ... legendary supernatural killer.

Just stop before you Candyman yourself.

Religious nut goes to care for a helpless wheelchair bound cancer patient in a creepy mansion, and is convinced she should save her patient's soul as well.

A setup for another Misery escape horror movie, if I ever saw one.

Saint Maud is slow paced, but never boring, as every scene sets up for the next. The viewer never feels lost. The ambiguity persists through the shocking end.

It has a lot to say about religion, but also says a lot about delusion, redemption, and isolation.

Slobby, self-righteous reporter gets infected with an overpowered alien symbiote.

Venom is not going to wow you visually or emotionally. I think that's why so many people liked this movie, but it's got so few stars.

That said, the leads have good chemistry. Enough to create a nice little triangle between Williams, Hardy, and Hardy/Venom. Riz Ahmed also plays a great contemptible hypocritical tech mogul villain. You wonder why they cast hunk Tom hardy as the lead until you realise his range includes extreme bewilderment (thankfully he doesn't mumble as much as he does in his other films.) I also enjoyed Jenny Slate playing an accomplice scientist.

Nevertheless, compared to massive ensemble Marvel outings, this film is second-rate. But almost suitably so. Venom is a supporting character in the comics, after all, as is host Eddie Brock. The CGI-slurry boss-fight is almost appropriate considering that symbiotes are essentially blobs.

There's a bit of confusion about exactly how hard it is for symbiotes to find good human hosts, and the basis of the emotional bond between Eddie and Venom, but this doesn't get in the way of the fun.

Venom doesn't try too hard either to create massive emotional moments, huge fight scenes, or to pop them with well-timed snark. It's the scrappy Sony Marvel movie that could.

'Sod the poor' conservatives will get triggered.

'Eat the rich' progressives will get triggered.

But this series is less to do with what you think than how you feel.

The Lyons family rush about a rapidly changing Britain, complaining loudly all the way. They don't act on reason, or principle, but emotion. They do brave, touching, inconsistent, reckless, and cruel things. And they do it in camp dramatic style so that the viewer is swept up too.

It's not perfect. I would have liked more backstory explaining and justifying some of the world-changes, but ultimately they were right to keep focus on a family navigating a turbulent and incomprehensible world.

Russel Davies of Doctor Who fame also resorts to moving the action along with rousing speeches from a seemingly ageless, crotchety grandparent-figure. Old habits are hard to break, I suppose.

I left it until 2021 to watch because I don't think I could have stomached this series if populism still had a stranglehold in the Anglosphere.

"At least they didn't predict a global pandemic.", I thought...

... which unfortunately doesn't stick the landing.

The sound of a VCR tape takes you back to 1997 where Boum and Ib are two best friends, daughters of affluent Thai business families.

The Asian financial crisis hits and their lives spiral to the point where they plan to execute a suicide pact atop their fathers' stalled high-rise project.

One survives and becomes a successful businesswoman with a bubbly young daughter.

Fifteen years later, the other returns.

Amazing performances and cinematography aside, this is a straightforward haunting story. There is no outwitting the ghost or questioning its motives. It is no creative monster like Elm Street's Freddy or The Ring's Samara, perhaps reflecting the relative conceptualization of spirits in South East Asia as more forces of nature than ex-humans with desires.

Unfortunately, the themes of bonds, despair, privilege, and sacrifice aren't really tied up at the end.

The filmmakers utterly nail the Asian crisis and its scarring which still haunts modern day Thailand. It's a story that is still being written, which may be why they couldn't satisfactorily resolve this tale.

One star off for the Action-Dad trope. But even that, they do very well, staying true to the premise of a lethal thug balancing work with life.

Balance and tension is central to the series. Ray the Magician has an ethical code, but he doesn't beat you over the head with it. He's not dumb at all, but not too smart either. Events go according to his tactical genius, but things go sideways too.

The characters are charming. You learn to love the ones you know you should hate.

Big topics like decay, grief, bullying, and helplessness, are treated with sensitivity, then balanced out with brash action sequences and screwball dialogue.

All delivered in suspenseful 25 minute episodes.

Imagine a cross between Po from Kung Fu Panda and Idris Elba ripping off the most famous museum in Paris. That's just the first episode.

They take a charismatic, charming lead, and push his manipulation to the edge of likability.

The threat is 'neutralised' early on, leaving you wondering what's next.

But you keep watching because the show has built up momentum...

... which was part of the misdirection in a very long con.

Superbly made, this mini series never disappoints.

Seriously though.... White Snake (not Whitesnake) is a retelling of the Chinese legend in which a white snake demon falls for a human.

Famously adapted into live action Cantonese romantic movies, this CG action version is by a mainland Chinese studio.

Animation is an excellent choice for the epic vistas and stylish magical battles. Unfortunately they are punctuated by awkward characterisation and dialogue.

Nevertheless, the characters are relatable enough, and the plot has enough twists to hold viewers through to the next fight sequence.

Less 'Is this Love'. More 'Judgement Day'.