TheObjectiveList Reviews

The Guilty (2021)

Feels like I watched a ponzi scheme

[3 August 2022]

This will be the first "movie" I don't give a rating to, because this wasn't a "movie".

I feel what happened was this: [**THIS IS ALL SPECULATION. YOU CAN'T SUE.**]

Producers were dealing with the pandemic, but were in a desperate need for cash. Someone came up with an idea for a movie that takes place in one room. Gyllenhaal owed a favor and was the most bankable star available, so they cast him in the lead. Jake, along with many other actors, were convinced that this would be the easiest paycheck they'd receive in their careers. The movie was filled in 11 days. Netflix paid. The end.

The story begins with Jake's character dealing with some kind of bug, and it teases the audience with a "this will be a hallucination due to high fever" twist that never comes. I expected a reveal that Jake is reliving something that happened to his wife and daughter. Why else would a detective be this invested? Nope.

The only twist is that the wife is a lunatic who attempted to kill her baby, which I called. Yes, attempted...despite police officers reacting as if they saw the goriest thing in their careers, the baby survives.

The bug, the protagonist's marital problems, and the call are all unrelated.

The Guilty would've worked better (though still a poor script that could've used another draft or two) as a play, or a short story, but there is no reason for it to be a movie.

Top Gun (1986)

The pattern is full

[6/10 · 28 July 2022]

I must admit, all of the pilot scenes went over my head (lol). But that's okay, because Top Gun, like Rocky, is a love story at the heart of it. And the character's are likable enough that you want to see them end up together (though we now know they don't thanks to this new Hollywood trend where sequels come out 20+ years later to let us know everyone broke up or became miserable).

I don't think it's possible to hate this movie unless you're susceptible to a social media mind virus that tells you "Top Gun love America, and America bad, so Top Gun bad". At it's worse, Top Gun comes off as a cheesy 80s flick bordering on parodying movies like Red Dawn. The dialogue is so cliche I had to check to see if James Cameron had a writing credit.

My main problem with the movie is that the stakes were so low. I was expecting a war to break out in the second act. But only at the beginning and end is there any real tension. It falls short of the two hour mark, which is a perfect length for what it is.

65.99/100.

Wavelength (1967)

*Shrug*

[22 April 2022]

I only want to review movies, and so I do not know if short movies count, but staring at a wall is not insightful or entertaining.

On the plus side, there was something to look at, rather than the blue screen in Nigel Tomm's "work".

0.1/100.

Birdemic: Shock and Terror (2010)

Not entertaining at all

[20 April 2022]

I was told Birdemic is a "so bad it's good movie" like Wiseau's The Room or Batman & Robin, but it isn't.

I can forgive the poor quality of the visual and audio equipment, the terrible CGI, the poor acting, the forced message, and how so many things in the story amount to nothing, but I can't forgive how a 1 hour 45 minute movie feels like it's 2 and a half hours long.

1.50/100.

The Catcher in the Rye (2008 Video)

TFW you get your first editing program on Windows XP

[18 April 2022]

Consider this a review of Nigel Tomm's entire "filmography". This review requires 150 characters. Here is the bare minimum, just like the "movie".

0/10.

Project X (2012)

(A less edgy) Kids meets Superbad

[2/10 · 18 April 2022]

I have always believed a movie deserves one star as long as the camera and equipment worked properly, and I was surprised to find out through behind the scenes footage that actual quality cameras and equipment were used. So why does it look so horrible? And why does the camera move like we're in a Jason Bourne movie? Is Cloverfield to blame?

Just like it's predecessor, The Virginity Hit, there is a heavy-set curly haired fellow who remains as one of the most obnoxious characters ever recorded on a camera. I sit there praying for Jason Voorhees to arrive and do what he does best with brainless, annoying, sex-crazed teens, but he never shows up.

The villain of the story is a neighbor with a baby at home who is trying to get some sleep. I can't help but think one of the screenwriters (yes, this movie has screenwriters) had a neighbor they couldn't stand and wrote this for him. I bet the neighbor is named Bob, because that's the wittiness I expect from one of the writers of Project X.

As for being edgy, this isn't exactly a Gaspar Noe or Pier Paolo Pasolini film. As for being cool, this is nowhere close to Dazed and Confused.

Project X might be offensive to the current twitter crowd, but it is not offensive as a movie because I am familiar with many low grade movies such as the American Pie installments. What does offend me is that Project X had a theater release, and it grossed over a hundred million dollars.

What Project X is mostly famous for (other than the party which is not all that interesting) is casting unknown actors who have all gone on to do great things and win various acting awards. : )

For anyone who thinks I'm a curmudgeon (I kinda am), ask yourselves this: why would you pay $12 for a movie ticket to watch a movie where the climax is a party, instead of throwing or attending one yourself?

27.11/100.

Almost Famous (2000)

I hurt the flower

[6/10 · 17 April 2022]

In order to love Almost Famous -- to see it as something special-- you must either have a fascination with or grew up in the 1970s, and you must be a fan of the music of the time. Everything I said in my High Fidelity review applies to Almost Famous, except I'll give Almost Famous more credit by saying that Almost Famous is nowhere near as boring.

Personally, I'm a casual listener to all forms of music. I don't worship celebrities, especially not musicians, so this isn't the movie for me.

Whoever it was who played the reporter is so bland he's nearly invisible. This is our protagonist; he's supposed to be our eyes into this new world most of us aren't familiar with. I've seen the actor in a couple other movies and he's just...there. Kate Hudson isn't exactly Tilda Swinton, but she gives a decent performance, although there isn't much to her character outside of being a groupie. As you can see on the poster, they decided she was the centerpiece of the movie, although Billy Crudup is way more interesting.

This is semi-autobiographical, but with all due respect I am simply not interested in Cameron Crowe's life.

68.22/100.

Magnolia (1999)

It's not going to stop

[6/10 · 16 April 2022]

I'm afraid I must go against consensus and side with George C Scott on this one.

Had Magnolia solely been about Tom Cruise's character and the struggles in his personal life, it would have been great. Had it been about Philip Baker Hall's story and the drama with his daughter, it would've been great.

Magnolia is a series of vignettes, most of which do not conclude with a definitive ending, and are only tied together by all the characters singing an obscure song. Some of the vignettes push to their emotional limit (as mentioned above) and some are just odd: There's a kid who doesn't want to be on a game show; he tells his father he doesn't want to be on the show anymore; the father says too bad. Fin. William H Macy's character wants to get braces because he thinks some bartender he's never spoken to will love him; the bartender is not gay. Fin. (Del Toro loved this and decided to use it in The Shape of Water).

John C. Reilly shows up playing a character straight from a Will Ferrell comedy. Yet instead of being an unemployed man-child, John's character is a police officer trying to track down a killer (which he fails to do). He is also smitten with Philip Baker Hall's daughter, which is the only real entertaining part of his story.

Jay Bauman from RedLetterMedia described Magnolia as a movie you have to plan your day around [See: Blade Runner 2049 review; 23:45] and he's right.

Magnolia is too bizarre to be a movie that claims to "capture the chaotic/random nature of life" and it's too grounded to be called surrealistic. It is not a parody/satire, but it isn't exactly a straightforward drama (for every scene like Tom Cruise crying over his dying father, you get scene like the one where a little boy raps about a serial killer to a cop. Seriously.) Every major character in this movie is miserable, regretful, or dying. Where is the light? Little Miss Sunshine gave us Grandpa as comedy relief. I feel like movies that have various characters in the same states with no divergence lack sincerity, and in the case of Magnolia, it becomes meandering due to its redundancy.

It's as if PTA had multiple similar ideas for a short film, and instead of making them, he decided to kill all the birds with one stone. Magnolia is beautiful, but it is bloated.

Whether or not it connects with you depends on your life experiences and the mood you're in when you watch it. Personally, I feel Magnolia falls short of PTA's other works, like Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood.

68.99/100.

High Fidelity (2000)

Low Perfidy

[6/10 · 15 April 2022]

There are no glaring issues with the quality of this movie. As a matter of fact, it cannot be called a bad movie. The thing is -- High Fidelity attracts a niche crowd. Personally, I don't care about old school music and relationship drama as it was presented here, so for me the movie was like watching water run down a wall. It was just something to look at for a couple hours.

The issue with High Fidelity is it's story. It's essentially "white people problems": the movie. It is a man telling us, the audience, "woe is me. I've had multiple girlfriends and all my teenage relationships ended". Because, y'know, teen relationships are supposed to last forever.

I don't remember a scene I could call memorable, and Cusack's performance isn't impressive in the least (not that he has much to work with).

This movie introduced the world to Jack Black. Every comedian has their schtick: Will Ferrell is a manchild; Ben Stiller is an average schmoe with bad luck... Jack Black is a Jim Carrey knock off, who himself is a Daffy Duck/Max Headroom knockoff.

There is nothing else to say.

68.11/100.

Tron (1982)

Look. This... is all a mistake

[6/10 · 14 April 2022]

Tron is a quaint, inoffensive movie with a couple interesting sequences in an otherwise dull 90 minute family friendly adventure.

The only strength of Tron is that the visuals look is interesting, though not 'revolutionary' when you consider its predecessors were Star Wars and Alien. But unlike Star Wars and Alien, Tron became dated a few years after its release.

The premise is so ridiculous that no one could ever take it seriously. I'm sure people who knew nothing about computers in 1982 probably laughed at the idea. This is all fine, except Tron fails to deliver high stakes or gripping action, and worst of all, lacks the heart of other children's movies like E. T. Yes, this is a children's movie...about software engineers.

Simply put, Tron is forgettable. How can one describe something that is forgettable? It is harder to say why something is bland rather than good or bad. There is no glaring issues with the plot or camera work. The issues with its effects are a matter of its time rather than laziness. It's simply something one had to grow up with; if, like me, you didn't grow up with Tron, you can skip it. This is not a must watch.

Tron's legacy (ha!) is the inspiration it had on cartoons, a long dead internet meme, and being one of the first movies to use CGI. If this movie were fun and terrible, I would recommend it for a laugh, but it's not all that fun (apart from a couple scenes, such as the bike race) and is adequately made as far as studio movies can be. I believe 'cult film' is a term that speaks to the mediocrity of quality.

67.55/100.

Jurassic Park (1993)

They spared no expense.

[8/10 · 14 April 2022]

Once upon a time, Spielberg knew how to visually tell a story.

Jurassic Park is everything you could want from Popcorn entertainment: the crowning achievement is it's stunning visual effects (which still hold up and are better than most of the CGI I've seen in the past 5 years); a tense, well-paced plot; timeless themes that are not wagging their fingers in your face; good performances; choreographed, large scale action scenes.

I imagine it's one of those things where the best way to watch it was to be there in the theater in 1993 when there was nothing else like it.

Despite the classic Spielbergian tugging of heart strings, Jurassic Park lacks the soul of it's novel. Crichton deserves his fair share of credit for Jurassic Park's success.

82/100.

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Do... or do not. There is no try.

[8/10 · 11 April 2022]

Everything that could be said about this movie has already been said.

My opinion, however, differs from the consensus: first, I think Obi Wan's original story was far more interesting than "the twist that changed cinema". And by Return of the Jedi, having everyone be related felt a little ridiculous (although it was likely done so the audience wouldn't feel bad for Luke).

I don't feel TESB upped the stakes; on a personal level, sure. But the climax of A New Hope was concerned with saving entire planets from destruction.

The pacing has been amped, and there are showings that Mr. Kasdan was writing with the knowledge that Star Wars was popular and needed to deliver, which it did.

84.77/100.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

Relax Eddie, it's ToonTown

[8/10 · 10 April 2022]

What can be said about this movie?

Who Framed Roger Rabbit does everything correct, and it had the fortune of being made by Speilberg's protege three years after he completed Back To The Future and six years before Forrest Gump ran through the Oscars.

As one might expect from the director of Back To The Future, the effects in this movie are amazing -- I would go as far to say some of the best in the history of cinema.

The only perceivable "flaw" is that the whodunnit is obvious, but that was never what the movie was about. No, not movie -- film. This is a film. There were no shortcuts taken; thank heavens this was made in 1988 and Roger had to be animated by hand, because I imagine how artificial a 3D Roger Rabbit would look, move, and possibly even act.

This is not to say 3D can't be done right (see Coco), but an eccentric character like Roger works better when he is given the freedom to move in a way computers do not yet allow. Computer animation, even now in 2022, is restrictive.

Bob Hoskins essentially acts alone half the time, but it's hard to tell. I have always had a fondness for character actors over "stars" who show up in a movie looking, sounding, and moving like themselves 90% of the time. Hoskins disappears into Eddie Valient. Even "method acting" darlings like Christian Bale lack the range of a Bob Hoskins. Had Mr. Hoskins delivered a subpar performance, this film would've failed.

The story is filled with "Chekov's guns"; the plot seamlessly introduces elements that play a larger role in the final act. We, the audience, understand so much about toontown in a natural way. The expositional dialogue is antithetical to a movie like Inception.

But what is most memorable are scenes where Looney Tunes and Disney characters share the screen. I can't imagine the reaction people must've had seeing this movie in theaters 1988.

A word of warning to parents: don't let the PG rating fool you. This is a 1980's PG, so think of the film as a soft PG-13.

82.63/100.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)

That's all it is, Miles. A leap of faith.

[7/10 · 8 April 2022]

Into the Spider-Verse is currently ranked as the 69th greatest film ever made on IMDB and the 19th greatest movie of all time on RottenTomatoes. And I don't know why. It's an okay movie, but c'mon.

For those who have watched the Star Wars Plinkett reviews, recall what Plinkett said about the hero's Journey: Heroes struggle at the beginning of their story; nothing seems to go right for them.

Let's talk about Miles Morales in the Spider-Man (2018) PS4 game. Miles has one friend, but doesn't seem all that popular. He has the misfortune of failing to save his father, who is also his role model. His father, now a missing presence at home, a daily reminder of what he lost; his father, a good cop who died a hero. His mother, now a widow, trying to raise a teenager by herself, probably struggling to pay the rent in an overpriced NYC apartment. And then there's the scene when Miles fixes the TV at the shelter...heart-shattering. Most important is Mile's personality -- Miles is simply a normal person constantly trying to do good and help others. In other words, a hero.

Now let's talk about Miles from SM:ITS. The neighborhood loves Miles; he doesn't seem to have a single enemy. He gets excepted into a prestigious school because he's a genius. Does he flunk? Only on purpose, because Miles a genius. His teacher notices this as well. Does he meet a group of bullies at his new school who decided to make his life miserable? Nope, he meets a love interest and they share a mutual attraction. What goes wrong for him in the first act? More importantly, what's his defining personality trait...apathy? Is jamming to music (a tad too inappropriate to be featured in a kid's cartoon) his defining feature? Instead of losing his father, he loses his uncle, who he shared two scenes with. When he goes home, he still has a mother and father -- no one is struggling to pay bills. It's still sad, but it doesn't quite hit like the death of a father. The strangest part of his character -- actually, Miles Morales in general -- is that he takes a passenger seat. We see the struggles of his personal life (after act 1), but he is in the shadow of more interesting characters dealing with more interesting issues. He is less like Batman, and more like Robin.

The pacing is a bit off -- things happen 20 minutes later than they should, especially the death of Mile's uncle. I think about all the animated movies that have a 80/90 minute runtime and I wonder why this movie needed to be 2 hours long.

Making Kingpin the main villain and giving his character design a width similar to the butler from Cats Don't Dance is...ugh, quite a choice. It would be like having a Batman Film where the villain is Lex Luthor, and Lex is twenty feet tall for some reason.

There is a moment where Mile's father thinks Spider-Man killed his brother. This sets up for some interesting conflict that could've been pushed far; it doesn't follow through. Mile's father (who is more interesting than his son, but then again, who isn't?) soon discovers who Spider-Man is and helps him.

Yet despite its flaws, Into The Spiderverse has an interesting style and unique animation. It feels like it's own movie. The concept is interesting and not afraid to go crazy, though this exact premise is done better in No Way Home.

Don't go in with expectations of it being the greatest animated movie ever made, and you'll have a good time.

72.36/100.

Speed (1994)

Like the bus, it never slows down

[7/10 · 7 April 2022]

Speed might have the best pacing of an action-thriller I've ever seen. Even after a re-watch, its hard not to lean forward at certain parts.

That said, there isn't much else to say. The editing isn't special, the characters are mostly one-dimensional outside of their need for survival, the performances range from meh (Keanu) to spectacularly hammy (Dennis), and the dialogue is what can be expected from a 90s action blockbuster -- though Joss Whedon is the one who wrote most of it, so it's tongue-in-cheek.

Speed accepts its flaws and delivers an interesting, nail biting premise. Though there are a few hiccups along the way (a certain scene disobeys the laws of physics, as seen in mythbusters), it remains a fun popcorn movie one can watch alone of with a group of friends.

If you're looking for the greatest action movie of all time, there are many movies to choose from, but Speed would not make the top 5. If, however, you want something entertaining to pass the time, this is your movie.

73.21/100.

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

In my experience, there's no such thing as luck

[8/10 · 6 April 2022]

I am a firm believer that popularity kills passion.

When Lucas set out to make Star Wars (the original title of "A New Hope") the idea of making hundreds of millions of dollars in 1977, even beating Jaws, seemed preposterous. He could not have seen what it would become. And so, Lucas made an honest film with no expectations.

The consensus is that Empire is the best in the series, but I don't believe the melodramatic twists and amped up action necessarily makes Star Wars (the original name of "A New Hope") inferior. On the contrary, in TESB we get a glimpse of the writing on the wall -- a more complex, action driven installment meant to draw in mone...whoops, I mean wow the fans; a foreshadowing of a series focus more on building its universe rather than telling a story, before being sold for a lot of money and becoming worse than ever before, because the company did not have a single idea for the franchise when they bought it.

Star Wars has pacing none of the future episodes would dare to replicate without throwing $20 million worth of CGI at the screen; it's "too slow". The story takes its time outlining the frustrations of our protagonist. (Luke was dreaming about "wanting more" before The Little Mermaid's Ariel was a thought). The visuals are the story, with dialogue as a supplemental addition -- Star Wars doesn't tell us, it shows us.

Every piece of action adds tension and serves the plot, rather than existing for the sake of the people watching. The characters are distinct, with clear motivations, and most of them speak with their own unique voices.

It follows the Hero's Journey to a tee. It does such a great job that whenever someone speaks about Campbell's theory, Star Wars is almost always used as an example. Campbell himself said the movie followed the journey perfectly.

Most importantly, the movie has heart without being overly sentimental. Obi Wan doesn't tell Luke he loves him and they don't hug (because Obi Wan is reserved), or whatever it is movies do these days that feel like the characters have hollow relationships but are trying to convince the audience they love each other.

There are a few nitpicks, such as Leia switching accents, but these have no bearing on the movie.

84.78/100.

Batman (1989)

You... are my number one... Batman!

[7/10 · 4 April 2022]

Reading the Batman comics from the 40s to the 90s, it's clear what the character and his world is: a story that toes the line between realism and fantasy; seriousness and zany comedy; a reflection of our world, but not quite a copy of it. Bruce is a man who must balance two lives: he must be a business man and a crimefighter; he must act naive, drunk, goofy, or incompetent, and then take on the role of a no-nonsense avenger.

Batman 89 knows this. It revels in the antics of the Joker, visual gags, and puns, but it does not let the humor define it, nor does it let the brooding set pieces of Gotham or the solemn protagonist dictate the tone. The movie is balanced.

Gotham is not our world. Gotham is a place with 1960s attire and cars, gothic architecture, and technology modern to the late 80s. Although it was not revolutionary at the time (see Metropolis (1927) and Blade Runner) it in part inspired Alex Proyas who in turn helped to inspire the Wachowskis.

Keaton's Batman kills in this version, just like the character did in the first few issues of the comics, and while I'm personally not a fan of Batman killing, it makes sense why criminals would fear him. This Batman is much scarier than Pattinson and Bale's version (though nowhere near as scary as Ben Affleck's take).

Joker is hilarious, yet he is an unpredictable psychopath no less scary that Ledger's portrayal. The only difference being that Jack will leave a smile on your face without the need for a knife.

Batman remains the most quotable of all the Batman movies. It doesn't need long-winded philosophical speeches or cliches to say something that sticks with us.

Admittedly, Vale is a forgettable love interest who exists only to be saved by Batman.

Despite not being as action packed as its successors, Batman is a respectable 2 hours, so it has no issue keeping the viewer's attention, especially when Jack is on the screen.

76.83/100.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Why So Serious?

[7/10 · 4 April 2022]

Abandon all hope ye who enter IMDB. This review is about the 3rd greatest film in the history of cinema -- a movie about a guy in a batsuit who punches a clown.

While I respect Nolan for bringing a vision to the big screen no other director at the helm of Batman ever gave us before, it takes itself a bit too seriously. What it is with PG-13 Batman movies and trying to scare off children? I mean, jump scares? For what purpose?

Yet for as serious as The Dark Knight tries to be, it comes across as silly at moments when it doesn't feel like that was Nolan's intention. For every piece of dialogue with quality like the "live long enough to see yourself become the villain" speech, you have a "I'm not wearing hockey pads" or "have a nice trip, see you next fall" or even "NO MOAR DED CAWPS".

Sure, I'll be the millionth person to say Ledger deserved his Oscar and that it was the best performance in the history of comic book movies, but when you take away Ledger's performance, you end up with a story that has at least one logistic issue per scene (for more on this: see Rob Ager's 'Two-faced' review), a protagonist who takes a backseat in his own franchise, desultory camera work, and a series of climaxes that have a build-up superior to its brief pay-offs. None of this would be an issue of The Dark Knight had fun with itself, but it refuses to wink at the camera. It refuses to paint Gotham in colors that aren't blue, black, or muddy Earth tones.

While Bale has given amazing performances throughout his career, his dopey Bruce (see The Batman Begins review by Youtuber Don't Walk, Run Productions)and meme-tastic Batman aren't the caliber of the multiple oscar nominated actor. Oldman, Freeman, and Caine all compete for second place after Ledger, yet they have little to give as this is essentially the Joker show (guest starring Batman).

The Dark Knight is short, funner, and to its credit less self-indulgent than The Batman. Having seen both of these movies on the big screen, I can say The Batman did not drag or feel its runtime as The Dark Knight did, yet The Dark Knight is a movie you can rewatch multiple times with a group of friends. Nolan's take on the Bush era is subtle, whereas Reeves lacks nuance.

73.42/100.

The Batman (2022)

Woah! Woah! Take it easy, sweetheart!

[7/10 · 4 April 2022]

It must first be said that the Batman is a shoo-in for the makeup, sound, costume design, and visual effects Oscars. It would not be surprising if Greig Fraser wins for cinematography for the second year in a role.

That said, it is a shame all this technical work was wasted on a film that has no identity. Not only is its political commentary confused (read: "The Confused Political Commentary Of 'The Batman'" by Dani Di Placido; not to mention the two privileged white male screenwriters want to tell us about how dangerous privileged white men are. Thank you for the warning Matt and Peter, I'll be sure to avoid you both if we ever meet), but it doesn't know what it wants to be because it is defined by its influences:

You have Thomas Wayne from the Telltale Games, Martha Wayne from Earth-1, Alfred from Earth One, a reference to The Long Halloween, a caricatured Cobain Bruce Wayne, a Penguin modeled after The Untouchable's Al Capone, another "grounded and realistic" Batman property, the color scheme of Se7en, Batman journals like Rorschach and there is a Watchmen-esque reveal, the final fight has nods to The Dark Knight and Batman 1989, a deleted Joker scene taken from Silence of the Lambs, and the plot of a run-of-the-mill film noir minus the shocking revelations of Chinatown or wit of something like Double Indemnity.

Creativity is not throwing elements into a blender. It is knowing what came before and pushing beyond, which the Batman does not do. Then there are issues with the plot and character motivations:

Falcone owns Gotham, yet the media reports (with no bias) his wrongdoings and the police, despite supposedly being on his payroll, arrest him. Batman lets Penguin shoot at Gordon and Selina only so he can get to the Batmobile. Why? Because it's a cool scene. He lets the Penguin escape so he can give chase to him, needlessly killing many civilians on the road. Riddler is broadcast over the news, yet none of the admins on the Twitch knockoff report him to the authorities? Or is this Reeve's understanding of "the dark web"? The World's Greatest Detective didn't realize the difference between 'El' and 'La', and neither did Gordon? And why is Batman in the modern world not spending most of his time searching for answers online? Does Reeves realize how many people on Youtube alone would treat the riddler's puzzles like an ARG and have them solved before Bruce could suit up?

See, when a movie takes itself seriously and demands to be seen as realistic, it opens itself up to critiques that would be ignored if had the courage to admit it had a silly premise.

Almost every scene has Batman getting the stuffing knocked out of him or failing to do something that should come natural to him. People say that it makes sense -- he's making mistakes because it's only his second year (despite being 35). The thing is: when you have been doing something every night for two years, things come somewhat naturally. Sure, mistakes will be made, but after around 6 months he should have the hang of jumping off of buildings, gliding, and scoping out locations rather than bull-rushing in (Reeve's apparently didn't take that influence from the video games).

As far as the acting and characters go, there's nothing all that impressive. As both Batman and Bruce, Pattinson uses two emotions. Selena is ready to kill someone and then ten seconds later french kisses Batman. Dano switches between Anthony Hopkin's Lector and Arnold from Troll 2 (I don't think I was supposed to be laughing during the interrogation scene). Colin is probably the best in the movie, but most of his performance is a credit to the prosthetics.

I don't agree with what David Fincher said about Joker(2019), but it applies here.

Despite all of its flaws, The Batman accomplishes what superhero movies should want to be: an entertaining popcorn flick that never bores the audience.

70.12/100.

Joker (I) (2019)

That's Life

[7/10 · 3 April 2022]

Comic book movies can never reach the artistic level of real cinema, yet Joker comes close.

Flicks like The Dark Knight and The Batman want to have their cake and eat it too -- they want to be compared with their inspirations (Heat, Black Sunday; Klute, Se7en, Chinatown) and so they base their movie's logic in a "grounded and realistic" world, yet the studio requires them to sell as many tickets as possible. And so we get fantastical, well-choreographed fight scenes and constant explosions to wow the viewers. Joker never stoops to that level. Every moment of violence is chaotic and looks like it hurts, which cannot be said about a Batman who takes a 100 bullets because body armor is apparently magic. An R-rating frees Joker from restrictions even the grittiest PG-13 movies tend to have.

As the two aforementioned Batman movies take inspirations from their betters, Philips takes inspiration from Scorsese. Yet unlike The Batman which becomes so bogged down with its influences that it never finds its own voice, Joker retains originally and remains unpredictable throughout, paying respects without going into Tarantino "homage" territory.

Violence aside, this movie feels real. There is no obvious CGI present, and the colors always feel like natural lighting rather than a filter added in via Adobe After Effects. Joker is not a character with a flower on his shirt that squirts acid; this is an unhinged man with a gun railing about the injustices of society.

Todd Philips and Joaquin Phoenix have created the first live-action Joker post-Dark Knight that doesn't rely on Ledger -- there is no imitation of Ledger's voice as we see with Jared Leto and Barry Keoghan, and there is no mimicry of Ledger's mannerisms.

For all the praise The Batman's obvious sets and computer animated additions receive for being gritty, it doesn't compare to this Gotham. Every building is plagued with graffiti and trash is piled up on the streets, giving the impression that Gotham must smell foul. Everything from the Subway to Arthur's apartment is dilapidated.

Most importantly, Joker wants you to think for yourself. Philips might be a leftist, but he does not have an agenda to force on his audience. Philips doesn't try to force the viewers to think of Arthur as a loser (*cough*Reeve's twitch streaming Riddler*cough*) or to think of Murray and Thomas Wayne as corrupt (*cough*The Batman*cough*). It manages to remain politically and morally ambiguous. And for all we know, this is a story the Joker is telling his psychiatrist in Arkham. Or it was all just another daydream.

WB did not have faith in this project and the budget was kept to a respectable $50 million. Unfortunately, with the success of Joker, the studio will become more invested, which might mean less creative control for Philips.

77.91/100.