First Movies Watched in 2022
Ah! Another year, another pile of new-to-me movies. This year, just like every year before it, I'll be documenting every movie I've seen for the first time this year.
List activity
227 views
• 0 this weekCreate a new list
List your movie, TV & celebrity picks.
33 titles
- DirectorAaron SorkinStarsNicole KidmanJavier BardemJ.K. SimmonsFollows Lucy and Desi as they face a crisis that could end their careers--and another that could end their marriage.Like most people who grew up between the years of 1951 up to approximately 2005-ish (when cable was replaced by on-demand streaming, and children were no longer growing up having classic reruns forced upon them as the only option of something to watch), I've seen every episode of I Love Lucy multiple times. And, as the title states, I do, indeed, love Lucy. Which seems to be a bit of a hinderance in my ability to enjoy this movie.
Or maybe it's just my personal preference towards realism over over-the-top melodrama when it comes to history? I dunno. In either case, I found myself constantly rolling my eyes at this thing. It was just so... Hollywood. So dramatic. It's like a parody of what Hollywood's take on a true story would be.
My first (and perhaps biggest) gripe was with how Lucy was presented as this cold-as-ice comedy savant. Cool, calculating, deeply analytical, and all business. It shows her imagining brilliant comedy to life as if she's John Nash dreaming up explanations to the universe in A Beautiful Mind (it even plays A Beautiful Mind-esque music when we see her fantasizing how these skits will play out). We see her hauling Vivian Vance and William Frawley into the studio in the middle of the night to go Stanley Kubrick on them. Having them repeat takes and really sharpening scenes to perfection. Is this actually something that occurred? Because I'd never heard about this before.
From the interviews I've heard from Lucy, she speaks as if she's never had particularly good instincts for comedy. In fact, she's mentioned how she was just good at acting out, verbatim, what was written on the page for her by other people (including gestures). To my knowledge, she never wrote or directed any episodes herself. She wasn't coming up with the bits herself. And, going by Lucy's own comments, it seems like Desi Arnaz was far more active in the business aspects than she was (I seem to recall her even putting it as: "He built an empire").
Also, as far as how cold and Devil Wears Prada-like she's seen in the movie (that's how she came off to me, at least), from the footage I've seen of her (from interviews, game shows, and award shows, primarily), this doesn't appear to be anything like her in reality. She seemed very humble and down-to-earth any time I'd seen her. And, despite her claims, she does appear naturally funny, kinda silly, cute, sweet, and charismatic in conversation. The Lucy in this film, however, looks to have a stick permanently up her ass, with the charm and personality of an accountant.
It's as if the movie was more interested in painting her as the ideal powerful, trail-blazing woman than they were in presenting her as the down-to-earth, warm-hearted woman she likely was. Heck, they even seemed to have made Desi Arnaz more or less a by-stander to Lucy's genius, rather than the primary contributor to her success (which, by all accounts, even that of Lucy herself, he most certainly was).
Oh. And if all that weren't enough, during her scenes with Desi she's comes across like a caricature of a seductress. Like a real-life Jessica Rabbit, sorta. Again, very Hollywood.
Despite all this, I gotta say, JK Simmons was a surprisingly great William Frawley. So points there. - DirectorAdam McKayStarsLeonardo DiCaprioJennifer LawrenceMeryl StreepTwo low-level astronomers must go on a giant media tour to warn humankind of an approaching comet that will destroy planet Earth.DiCaprio was great. Jonah Hill was... well, Jonah Hill. Meryl Street was sorta lame. Jennifer Lawrence was good. The satire was a good idea. In the end, all of this just didn't mesh well for me, however.
- DirectorArch ObolerStarsWilliam PhippsSusan Douglas RubesJames AndersonThe world is destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. Only five Americans survive, including a pregnant woman, a neo-Nazi, a black man and a bank clerk.This film requires quite a lot of suspension of critical thinking. First of all, what are the chances that the last five people left alive all happen to be so near each other? Let alone stumble upon each other within just a matter of days? Also, why is it that all that's left of the dead is their skeletons, yet no buildings, vehicles, windows, clothes, or anything else appears to be destroyed, charred, or otherwise harmed? Everyone's skin melted off but a shop window (and it's "be back in five minutes" sign) is completely unchanged?
Frankly, if they were going to get the science this wrong they may as well have made this a movie about people stranded on a deserted island. It's as if they didn't even try. I mean, it's 1951. Hiroshima had already happened at this point, for Pete's sake. It's not as if we didn't know what a nuclear explosion or nuclear fallout would do.
If the story had been better, however, I could have easily overlooked all of this. After all, I typically enjoy small-scale movies with only a tiny handful of characters (especially in a I Am Legend-esque situation like this). But everything about this film felt lifeless. Ironic, really. - DirectorIl ChoJo Il HyungMadeleine MartinStarsYoo Ah-inPark Shin-hyeJeon Bae-sooThe rapid spread of an unknown infection has left an entire city in ungovernable chaos, but one survivor remains alive in isolation. It is his story.I gave this an unusually high rating because it's an unusually new and effective take no an extremely done and over saturated genre, with only two actors (for the most part) and taking place in just two apartment rooms. Other than that, of course, it's your typical zombie movie. But I like zombie movies. Even if the ending did feel a tad convenient.
- DirectorMatt Bettinelli-OlpinTyler GillettStarsNeve CampbellCourteney CoxDavid Arquette25 years after a streak of brutal murders shocked the quiet town of Woodsboro, Calif., a new killer dons the Ghostface mask and begins targeting a group of teenagers to resurrect secrets from the town's deadly past.Horrendous. I'm actually angry that other people seem to like this (or, at least, don't outright hate it). To me, this is akin to the Independence Day sequel in it's suckery.
There are various reasons for this. For one, there appears to be no reason for it to exist, other than to cash in on the Scream name. Stupidly, I'd assumed from the trailers that they actually may pull off a clever reasoning for these murders to have started occurring again, forcing Dewey, Sydney, and Gail back into the mix.
What that reasoning could have been, I've no idea. But something deeper than, "Oh, it's just two random movie fans, who have no connection with any of the original characters, who've gone off the deep end" at least.
While the motivations for the killers have been kinda lame in the past, this time around really takes the cake. I mean, at least in the previous films they ATTEMPTED a good rationalization for why this event would occur again and why the OG cast would be dragged into it. In part one, obviously, Billy wanted revenge after finding out Sydney's mother had an affair with his father (thus destroying his family). In part 2, Billy's mother wanted revenge on Sydney because she killed Billy. In part 3, Sydney's brother wanted revenge on Sydney's mother for abandoning him (and it's revealed he was the true mastermind behind part 1). In part 4, Sydney's cousin was sick of Sydney getting the limelight in the family and wanted to make herself the new "final girl".
In each of these movies (save for part 3) there was also a secondary killer. One who was more or less a dimwitted, pointless nutty lacky for the main killer. Someone who the main killer manipulated to help them commit their crimes. In Scream 5, that's all we got. Two dimwits who have nothing to do with anything.
Due to this, Sydney and Gail's involvement in this film is pretty pointless, in my opinion. What little time they have on screen just feels like fan-serving cameo time. But, hey, at least we get to see that they're strong, empowered, take-no-gruff independent women, right? (Barf)
Dewey, however, was at least given purpose and personality. And he was actually one of the view good parts of the movie. Largely due to his usual charm and his connection to the previous films. And, if he'd have been the main character of this movie, perhaps I'd have not rated it so poorly. I think I may have liked that a lot, actually. An entire Scream film about Dewey chasing a killer.
But he wasn't the main character. They killed him off about halfway through. And along with him, died the last lingering threads of my interest in this requel.
As far as the new cast goes. They were just a pile of redshirts, honestly. The sisters were boring, the friend group was generic, and none of them were fleshed out (no pun intended) well enough for me to care about. Seriously, every single one of them could have been murdered and it wouldn't have affected me in the slightest.
But, alas, they were all we were left with. Them and the newly old and irrelevant Gail and Sydney.
The entire intention of this movie appears to be to act as a segue for a new series of Scream films that don't involve the original cast at all. It was their way of introducing us to all of these shitty new characters while simultaneously letting us say "hi" and "bye" to the legacy cast.
But, frankly, Scream isn't Scream when it's not about the original characters. This isn't A Nightmare On Elm Street, Friday the 13th, or Final Destination, where the interesting villain or the unique concept is the star and the protagonists are interchangeable. Scream is about Dewey, Sydney, Billy, Stu, Randy, Gail, Cotton, etc. Without them, we're just left with a self-referential slasher film.
So, you know... just kill this franchise already. Gut it like a fish. Make your own instead of trying to ride the money making coat tails of the past. - DirectorShawn LevyStarsRyan ReynoldsWalker ScobellMark RuffaloAfter accidentally crash-landing in 2022, time-traveling fighter pilot Adam Reed teams up with his 12-year-old self for a mission to save the future.It was alright. A nice little bubble-gum sci-fi comedy.
- DirectorPaul Thomas AndersonStarsAlana HaimCooper HoffmanSean PennThe story of Alana Kane and Gary Valentine growing up, running around and going through the treacherous navigation of first love in the San Fernando Valley, 1973.Probably my favorite PT Anderson movie since Punch-Drunk Love. Admittedly, however, I've still yet to see the Phantom Thread (it just looks so... boring).
That being said, nothing particularly big actually happens in this movie. Unlike my other favorites of his (Boogie Nights, Hard Eight, Magnolia, and Punch-Drunk Love), this is a fairly slow movie with no action, over-the-top moments, gimmicks, or particularly dark or hard-hitting drama. It's just a good love story that's acted very well, looks perfect (it's so great not seeing something in digital lol), and successfully tugs at the heart-strings in a very realistic way.
I see myself watching this again in the future. - DirectorGuillermo del ToroStarsBradley CooperCate BlanchettToni ColletteA grifter working his way up from low-ranking carnival worker to lauded psychic medium matches wits with a psychologist bent on exposing him.While nowhere near as memorable as the original, I still found this to be a fairly entertaining film. Albeit, a bit longer than it needed to be, in my opinion.
It was only five years ago that I first saw the original Nightmare Alley (I've never read the book). I believe I did so while binging a long series of classic film noirs, during my 365 Movies in 365 Days Challenge. On the whole, I've since forgotten a lot of those movies. But Nightmare Alley? No way. That movie has stuck with me from the time I watched it up to today. It was like a feature length Twilight Zone episode (without the fantasy element). And, like those classic Twilight Zone episodes, it was concise and to the point with it's shocking and tragic tale.
Again, however, it's not that this film was bad. It simply pales in comparison. A bit too glitzy. A bit too polished. A bit too... Hollywood (even the flames during a housefire were CGI). Whereas the original film felt very real. Which, I think, added significantly to how disturbing it was. - DirectorSian HederStarsEmilia JonesMarlee MatlinTroy KotsurAs a CODA (Child of Deaf Adults) Ruby is the only hearing person in her deaf family. When the family's fishing business is threatened, Ruby finds herself torn between pursuing her passion at Berklee College of Music and her fear of abandoning her parents.I'm half unsure if an 8 isn't too high, but to hell with it.
My only real issue with the film is that it seemed to (ironically) miss its beats more often than it should have. And unlike similar films that DID hit their beats (I'm thinking something like Billy Elliot, for instance), our protagonist didn't really seem all that special to me. Yeah, she could sing. But, in my opinion, the film never emphasized well enough that there was anything particularly special about her singing that would motivate her music teacher to isolate her, out of all students, as the one with something special going for her; the one destined for greatness. I never felt an inkling of that throughout the entire film.
Also, things like her and the teacher's relationship together didn't feel particularly fleshed out well either. Why does he care so much? Even now, after having watched the entire film, I'm wondering if he even knew her home life situation and how she was being forced to work for her family in between taking music lessons. Yet, by the end of the film, we're expected to believe that he's really been through the wringer with him and that the two have somehow developed a close bond. If that's the case, that must've all been off-screen.
Similarly, her love interest was a bit absent most of the time and we never saw that whole thing really develop. We simply saw the beginnings, a quick montage at a lake, and suddenly they're in love.
So, why did I give this an 8, again?
I'm not sure really. Maybe I shouldn't have. But the real core of the story, the relationship between the girl and her deaf family, was good. Really good. Possibly 8 good.
So good, in fact, that maybe they should have just ditched the side stories with the love interest and the teacher all together and put all focus purely on that. - DirectorCharlie McDowellStarsJason SegelLily CollinsJesse PlemonsA man breaks into a tech billionaire's empty vacation home, but things go sideways when the arrogant mogul and his wife arrive for a last-minute getaway.This felt like such a complete and utter waste of time. I mean... what was the point?
A guy (who I assume is poor) is hanging out at a tech billionaires house (fantasizing about himself being in the billionaires shoes, I suppose?). The tech billionaire and his wife suddenly show up, catching the poor guy off guard. Not knowing what to do, he takes the two hostage. There's a brief half an hour or so where I'm trying to figure out if this is meant to be a quirky comedy or not, due to how goofy all the characters are behaving. Then it gets very dark out of nowhere and ends with a *shocking* (meh) twist.
Was there a message meant to be hidden in this or something? Something about classism or whatever hacky thing? If so, what was that message trying to say about classism? That rich, powerful white men are bad? I'm unsure. I'd hope not, however, as that's about as tropey as it gets. Nevermind that it's an overgeneralization akin to bigotry.
I'm still not sure if it was trying to be funny at all. All of the actors stunk. Jason Segal was basically a mute throughout the entire thing. The wife was just some generic white lady. Jesse Plemons is the only one that at least appeared to be giving his character any personality whatsoever. Sadly, however, Jesse Plemons is a shit actor who always looks like he's acting.
I don't know. Why was this made? There's no point in watching this. Watch Funny Games or The Ref or something instead. - DirectorRyûsuke HamaguchiStarsHidetoshi NishijimaTôko MiuraReika KirishimaA renowned stage actor and director learns to cope with a big personal loss when he receives an offer to direct a production of Uncle Vanya in Hiroshima.I don't get it.
Apparently, this is a big contender for the best picture award at the Academy Awards this year. And, after I'd finished watching it, I checked out some message boards to see what other viewers had to say about it and I repeatedly saw words like "masterpiece" being thrown around. And, again... I don't get it.
This felt like 3 hours of just... nothing. Just a man attempting to come to terms with/understand the death of his wife and his relationship with her. We see this presented via a handful of long, *profound* monologues by various actors and some parallels between the protagonist's real life and the play he's working on.
It's very slow. The actors are fairly stone-faced throughout. No one is particularly interesting. And, as mentioned, it's three hours long. If the dialogue doesn't move you or get you thinking, then you're doomed to snoozeville with this one. Because that's really all it's got to offer. - DirectorMichael ShowalterStarsJessica ChastainAndrew GarfieldCherry JonesAn intimate look at the extraordinary rise, fall and redemption of televangelist Tammy Faye Bakker.It was okay. Jessica Chastain was pretty good as Tammy Faye. Andrew Garfield wasn't that great, but he didn't ruin it. I don't know what it is with movies these days, repeatedly trying to convince me that him, Jonah Hill, and Jesse Plemons are good actors. Putting them in one "critically acclaimed" movie after another. I can say, with zero hesitation, that any great movie with them in it has been great despite their inclusion, not because of it.
Ahem. Anyway. As far as The Eyes of Tammy Faye goes, maybe the biggest issue was simply that the story it's based on just wasn't primed to make a great movie. Because the acting, as I mentioned, wasn't a problem. The direction seemed fine. In theory, this should have been really good. It's just... something was missing.
Movies in which I found myself kind of comparing this to were The People Vs. Larry Flynt, Man on the Moon, Autofocus, Behind The Candelabra, Bernie, etc. All of which seemed to have a more well-defined story they were trying to tell. By the end of The Eyes of Tammy Faye, I found myself wondering how I'd even explain the plot of this to anyone. It doesn't appear to have any bigger message hidden in the subtext. The big climax of the drama in her life, while certainly impactful to her existence, seemed about as exciting as watching someone getting indicted for tax evasion. I felt unengaged. There just didn't appear to be enough excitement in her life to warrant a movie being made out of it.
That being said, I do plan on watching the documentary in which this was based on. Perhaps, after seeing that, I'll change my perspective on this. Or, at the very least, have a better idea of what was missing from it. - DirectorToby MeakinsStarsIola EvansAsa ButterfieldRobert EnglundAfter firing up a lost 1980s survival horror game, a young coder unleashes a hidden curse that tears reality apart, forcing her to make terrifying decisions and face deadly consequences.Not particularly entertaining. The plot felt very random without much thought behind it. The cast of characters were all very uninteresting, as well. I'll be surprised if I will remember having watched this by next week.
- DirectorMatt ReevesStarsRobert PattinsonZoë KravitzJeffrey WrightWhen a sadistic serial killer begins murdering key political figures in Gotham, The Batman is forced to investigate the city's hidden corruption and question his family's involvement.I was surprised by how much I ended up enjoying this. Yes, there was some wokeness shoehorned in there (even including the phrase "white privileged" at one point), but it was good despite the needless injection of this never ending nonsense.
I particularly enjoyed the more creepy tone and look to it. For whatever reason, there's always been a somewhat creepy factor to the Batman story in my mind. The hero is, himself, somewhat broken and unhinged. The depiction of the city of Gotham looks like something from a Bloodborne game. The Villains are murderous psychopaths that dwell in damp and dark places. And everything is just generally very bleak and noir-ish. I felt this movie captured a lot of this very well.
It's this grounded-to-reality (as best as one can be for this genre) and dark and humorless vibe that I feel Batman and Batman-related stories need to have (at least in film). I always kind of rolled by eyes at people who considered the Nolan films fitting this category as, to me, they felt about as comic-booky and silly as anything else out there. The 80s Batman, I felt, had the aesthetic down perfectly (and some of the mood) but the writing, sadly, was kinda bad. The Snyder stuff could have been great, if only the story had been a bit smaller in scale, a tad less heavy on CGI, and more focused. BVS felt all over the place and The Justice League felt like it was trying too hard to be a poor man's Marvel movie.
This, though... It looked right. It felt grounded in reality. There wasn't an ounce of humor. We got a depressed, serious, ever-brooding Batman. It all fit. It was all perfect.
Well, almost.
My only real issue with the film is that it's story, while fine, contained very few "holy shit!" moments that I feel will stick with me. There were no iconic scenes or epic lines. It was like the Joker movie if the Joker movie didn't have that walking down the hallway scene, or dancing down the stairs scene, or appearance on the Murray Show scene. It would still be cool and very good. But without those impactful moments... is it really going to stick with you as much?
Love the characters, loved the setting, and loved the vibe. But the story, as a whole, just felt a bit lacking. - DirectorLucie JourdanStarsJacoba BallardJulie HarmonMatt WhiteAfter a woman's at-home DNA test reveals multiple half-siblings, she discovers a shocking scheme involving donor sperm and a popular fertility doctor.Pretty boring, if I'm being honest.
And, in actuality, what I took away from it had more to do with observations of the media and people's irrational behavior when they're angry.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not on the doctors side or anything (I'm not that much of a contrarian). What he did was obviously bad for multiple reasons. For one, it's not good to have this many siblings running around out there who don't know they're siblings (especially when they're in close proximity to each other). This could lead to all sorts of accidental inbreeding that could lead to children with birth defects. For another, it really seems to not feel appropriate in terms of a patient-doctor relationship. Also, some of these women wanted specific men as sperm donors and were told that's what they were getting. To get anyone else's sperm without their knowledge (let alone the doctors) is terrible.
With that all being said, I was hoping for a documentary that would perhaps explain the doctor's reasoning and attempt to give a genuine idea of what his thought process was. This, however, was merely an hour and a half of villainization from people who've already decided that he's a monster.
Again, I think they're perfectly within their right to have the emotions they do. But I don't want to watch a film that presents a story purely through the view of their biases and the most monstrous POV's possible of this guy. Hell, I get annoyed when this is done in documentaries about serial killers where there's no debate about their guilt. Let alone something like this.
At various moments throughout the film, the man was spoken about as if he were a rapist. In one of the last lines of the film, he was matter of factly said to have "assaulted" these women. At one point, they even tried to put forth the idea that he was a racist who was trying to populate the world with blonde-haired children. What?
When the victims spoke to authorities about the law, the victims lashed out at the authorities as if they were the ones who make the rules rather than just enforcing them.
These victims are too blinded by rage to be objective about this case. I understood their perspective pretty quickly. I'd have enjoyed hearing something from another side at some point (which, again, I don't think that the other side would come out as the good guy in this, but perhaps he's not actually the sexual predator and racist monster that I keep hearing about him being; perhaps his reasoning, however flawed, was something less sinister... or maybe not??).
There's one point in the film where they play a phone call with the doctor to one of his victims, in which he claims that the media is only looking for a juicy story to capitalize on and that the girl he's on the phone with is only looking to hurt him. And I believe this is completely correct.
Is the media right for doing this? Are the victims right for it? Is the documentary right for it?
I don't know. Maybe on some level. Then again, maybe not. This isn't a question we're meant to be asking ourselves by the end. This film has already decided it knows what right is. They've skipped the debate and have decided for us that what this man has done is akin to rape and assault. It's just expecting us to go along with them. - DirectorJoseph KosinskiStarsChris HemsworthMiles TellerJurnee SmollettIn the near future, convicts are offered the chance to volunteer as medical subjects to shorten their sentence. One such subject for a new drug capable of generating feelings of love begins questioning the reality of his emotions.Normally, I'm a sucker for a good, Twilight Zone-ish premise. Oftentimes, I'll even go as far as to rate a movie highly based on that alone (regardless of how bad the direction, dialogue, or acting is). But this movie just fell completely flat for me.
For starters, the leading man is Miles Teller. Now, I loved Whiplash just like everyone else. But, aside from that very specific role, I can't for the life of me fathom why anyone would think this guy is good leading man material. He's completely devoid of charm, charisma, or personality. If there was ever a human embodiment of the gray default profile picture, it would be this guy. He's just so... bland.
Hemsworth, on the other hand, is somewhat fun to watch in this. Mostly just because he's Chris Hemsworth. He's just got the kind of face and way of speaking that draws eyes to the screen. Also, his character, at first, at least, is kind of interesting. He's quirky (often randomly jamming to 80s pop songs) but also mysterious (as if, behind that charming exterior, there's something dark and dangerous lurking).
And as far as the cast goes, that's about it. The female lead (if we're going to call her that) is barely in the film. It's not until the very last minute that we're informed that she's someone we should've been caring about. And, by then, it's too late. She was so irrelevant that I'm not even going to bother looking up her name for this.
As I mentioned, of course, the basic concept seemed interesting to me at first. Like something out of Black Mirror, perhaps. Scientists are using prisoners as Guinea pigs to test out a way of controlling human emotion by adjusting their love settings, their horny settings, their fear and sadness settings, et cetera. They plop them in a little room, crank up the knob for a particular emotion, and observe and document the effects. It's a cool idea.
Sadly, however, the film fails to do anything with this cool idea. There's no creative or intelligent way presented of discussing free will, for instance. There are no difficult questions given to either the characters or us, the audience, to ponder over. And there are no situations that occur that are any more complex than, "Hey, let's crank up the horny and make them have sex... oh! It worked! Cool. Alright, let's make them normal again." It's very... simple. Very shallow.
At the beginning of the film, however, and for a good while into it, in fact, I did get the impression that something deeper was going to come up. While there was some quirkiness here and there, the tone appeared to be mostly somber and mysterious. I kept waiting for the Ah-ha moment when the movie would reveal to us what it was truly about. How deep and smart the writing really was. But it never did. It turns out it really was just very surface-level entertainment with generic heroes and evil bad guys.
Also, inexplicably, near the end, it becomes a wacky comedy brimming with lovably over-the-top silly characters. Like shit finger, or the guy who eats a lot. Remember how I thought Chris Hemsworth's character was kind of interesting? A bit dark and mysterious? Nope. He's just a bumbling comic book villain it turns out, and his quirkiness was actually just who he was. His whole existence winds up just being the butt of a joke.
Why this suddenly turned into a complete comedy in the end, I don't know. But this abrupt tone shift was the final nail in the coffin for me. - DirectorMichael CacoyannisStarsKatharine HepburnVanessa RedgraveGeneviève BujoldThe women of Troy face enslavement after the fall of their city.Adapted from the 415 BC play of the same name, written by Euripides, The Trojan Women tells of the aftermath of the Trojans who survived the fall of Troy. It tells about their grief, their suffering, and the continuing dehumanizing pain they must endure as they're now raped, sold into slavery, and forced to watch as their children are taken away from them and sometimes killed.
While the story of the Trojan War itself may be fictional, this type of aftermath was nothing unusual either in the Bronze Age or the many ages afterward. In fact, this is the often untold story of fallen cities from before then, to Alexander the Great, to the fall of Carthage, to the Ottoman takeover of Constantinople, to the Nanjing Massacre in 1937, and on, and on, and on.
War has never been pretty business. And the great conquests that have made us who we are today have always been especially brutal. And while we should be careful about too harshly judging historical figures over this (sadly, it was an expected norm back then, regardless of what side you were on), we should nevertheless remain conscious of the horrific reality that these types of things ever occurred at all. Both at the hands of our enemies and our heroes. And this film, adapted from one of our oldest surviving anti-war stories, does a good job at conveying that. - DirectorHoward HawksStarsJack HawkinsJoan CollinsDewey MartinA captured architect designs an ingenious plan to ensure the impregnability of the tomb of a self-absorbed Pharaoh, obsessed with the security of his next life.Going by the cover of this, I'd assumed I was in for a corny, beatniks dancing next to the River Nile, knockoff version of an epic. Surprisingly, however, I quite enjoyed this movie.
Sure, the whitewashing was a bit of a turnoff at first. I found it very difficult to take this Pharaoh seriously with him looking like a Dollar Store John Wayne. And there was quite a bit of hamminess in terms of the plot, acting, and dialogue. But, other than that, I thought it was pretty fun. And, astoundingly, I found myself eventually feeling as if I was in this world, even despite the fact that I couldn't swallow all these Caucasian Egyptians.
I'm quite interested in Egyptian history (this is the reason I watched this in the first place) and was happy to see that this movie gave a reasonably good attempt at depicting one of the most remarkable things ever done in Egyptian history. The building of the Great Pyramid of Giza (the last surviving member of the 7 Wonders of the World) by the Pharaoh Khufu.
Granted, it was far from what I'd call historically accurate when it came to a lot of specifics. And the melodramatic plot involving deceiving women, a slave architect, etc were all products of the filmmaker's imaginations. But the general stuff was all there. The reason for the pyramids was emphasized, how important the afterlife was to these people, particular aspects of their religion, it all felt very true to reality. Even if the story itself was imaginary. - DirectorMichael CurtizStarsJean SimmonsVictor MatureGene TierneyIn ancient Egypt, a poor orphan becomes a genial physician and is eventually appointed at the Pharaoh's court where he witnesses palace intrigues and learns dangerous royal secrets.After Land of the Pharaohs, I was kind of hoping I was prematurely judging old sword-and-sandal movies. After this, however, maybe the aforementioned film was just a fluke.
I think that the biggest downfall of the film, honestly, was its protagonist. The actor, the character, everything about him was terrible. He was unlikable, boring, and completely uninteresting. I felt like half the time I was hoping he'd be killed. And his part of the story (as you can imagine, with a protagonist) took up the vast majority of this very long film.
If, perhaps, more focus was put on Akhenaten and Nefertiti and their controversial conversion to this new monotheistic religion, I think it could've made for an alright watch. In real life, this was apparently a very big deal when it occurred and caused quite the uproar in Ancient Egypt, where they'd been polytheists for thousands of years. Akhenaten changed all of that, though, switching the location of the empire's capital (building an entire city to do so), wiping away all remnants of the old gods, and telling everyone that he, himself, is the son of this new god and then he should be worshipped right along with it. Unsurprisingly, this didn't end very well for him. But no one knows exactly HOW it ended. All we know is that, within 17 years of starting his reign, he was dead. And then a mysterious power struggle seemed to occur where the next person in charge was possibly his wife, Nefertiti, and then his buddy Ty, then his 9-year-old son, Tutankhamen. Then all mentions of Akhenaten, his reign, his religion, and his new capital are all wiped out (presumably on the orders of the new guys in charge).
After Tutankhamen's death, as a teenager, Horemheb then becomes Pharaoh. Horemheb is actually featured in the film and had the potential to be an interesting character. In real life, just like in the movie, he really was just a commoner who somehow rose to the ranks of general and then became Pharaoh. An entire movie could have been made about him alone.
But no. We waste all our time on this simp physician who never existed in real life, who I can't even tell is meant to be a good or bad guy half the time. And a weird, not at all subtle attempt at a Christianity parallel that's as cringe-worthy as it is hamfisted. In fact, the entire film seemed to just amount to a pretentious propaganda piece for Christianity, where Akhenaten is treated as a Jesus figure and the religion of Anten was just a failed trial at Christianity (it wasn't) which was conquered and scrubbed out by the evil Roman... err... the new Pharaohs.
Suffice it to say, I wasn't a big fan of this one. Nor its ridiculous message. - DirectorFernando CerchioStarsJeanne CrainVincent PriceEdmund PurdomChronicles the rise and fall of the woman who eventually became known as Queen Nefertiti.Another sword-and-sandal clunker taking place in the same time period, with the same characters as were featured on The Egyptian. Most of my complaints of the former apply here, as well. So I'm not going to waste time re-writing them.
- DirectorPaul W.S. AndersonStarsKit HaringtonEmily BrowningKiefer SutherlandA slave-turned-gladiator finds himself in a race against time to save his true love, who has been betrothed to a corrupt Roman Senator. As Mount Vesuvius erupts, he must fight to save his beloved as Pompeii crumbles around him.Between this movie and the actual eruption of Mount Vesuvius, it's honestly a tough call as to which was the biggest disaster.
- DirectorKevin MacdonaldStarsChanning TatumJamie BellDonald SutherlandIn Roman-ruled Britain, a young Roman soldier endeavors to honor his father's memory by finding his lost legion's golden emblem.This is a very reluctant 7-rating. The last 14 minutes and that super happy ending tempted me to drop this to a 5. What were they thinking? It was so good up until that point.
- DirectorBaz LuhrmannStarsTom HanksAustin ButlerOlivia DeJongeThe life of American music icon Elvis Presley, from his childhood to becoming a rock and movie star in the 1950s while maintaining a complex relationship with his manager, Colonel Tom Parker.As much as I normally enjoy Baz Luhrmann, I really wish someone else would have taken the reigns for an Elvis movie. Someone more in touch with realism rather than a heightened, overly stylistic exaggeration of reality. I (as well as most, I'm sure) already know the cool caricature of Elvis. What I would have preferred is to see was a portrayal of the reality of the man.
During Elvis's first performance in this film, for instance, you see an otherwise normal, straightlaced, unsuspecting girl in the audience look as if she's become suddenly possessed with an orgasmic demon. When Elvis first begins singing and his legs move, you'd think someone behind the stage had just flipped on a secret Sybian hidden under her chair rather than her just seeing a guy dance and sing for the first time. Another girl in the audience <i>involuntarily</i> screams, then catches herself momentarily as if to say "Oh, my, I'm unsure of what just came over me". Next thing you know, all the girls in the audience are basically screaming and having orgasms. It's just so... over-the-top and cartoony. I mean, yeah, girls did eventually behave this way towards the guy. But that's only <i>after</i> he'd become famous. From how this film paint it, you'd think Elvis had the supernatural ability (just from the sheer sexiness of him) to walk into a church, start dancing, and suddenly the nuns would soak themselves and toss their habits at him. It's an absurd over exaggeration.
And this is how the film paints all of Elvis's life. He's not just some white kid who grew up exposed to black music but, rather, he stumbled upon it one day and instantly had what appeared to be a religious-like epiphany.
I kind of liked the <i>idea</i> behind using modern rock and rap music in the place of the rock and blues of the time. It seems like a creative way of showing modern audiences how different and new that type of music felt to people back in the day. But mostly I found it unnecessary and just a bit of a gimmicky way to make the story feel "cooler". Which is maybe my biggest problem with the film. It felt far too overly concerned with style instead of substance.
Event occurred in such a fast paced, CliffNotes way that I could barely keep up. The movie felt like one long, loud, colorful, overly energetic montage rather than a story of any sort. The movie never seemed to take a breath. And I, as the viewer, never felt like I had a chance to get to know or care about any of the characters. - DirectorRawson Marshall ThurberStarsDwayne JohnsonRyan ReynoldsGal GadotAn Interpol agent successfully tracks down the world's most wanted art thief with help from a rival thief. But nothing is as it seems as a series of double-crosses ensues.Bland action movie with zero memorable moments or redeeming aspects. I'm sorry I watched it.
- DirectorDaniel KwanDaniel ScheinertStarsMichelle YeohStephanie HsuJamie Lee CurtisA middle-aged Chinese immigrant is swept up into an insane adventure in which she alone can save existence by exploring other universes and connecting with the lives she could have led.It was a really great movie. I laughed, I cried, it was visually cool, it was wildly creative and unique. It was, however, a very simple story with a very simple message that I didn't find particularly thought provoking. I'm not sure if that's a criticism per se, as the movie certainly didn't require anything like that nor did I feel it was making any special attempt to achieve it. But, for whatever reason, I believe I went into this assuming it would be a bit more mindbendy than it was (I'm unsure why I thought this, as the only thing I knew about the movie was that it was popular and possibly sci-fi). Anyway, I enjoyed it a lot for what it was.