megamatt-80194 Reviews

Batman: The Audio Adventures (2021 Podcast Series)

Funny During Brief Moments, But Otherwise Not That Good.

[4/10 · 18 September 2021]

There's a reason Audio Shows have long receded into history. And Batman: The Audio Adventures won't bring it back to life.

There's a few things to like:

1. Jeffery Wright is pretty solid as Batman.

2. It has a few clever jokes and lines.

3. Some minor characters are bearably acted.

4. The 'commercial breaks' could have been a creative idea if done well.

That's about it. The two episodes I heard were not that interesting. The attempts at modern humor are unflattering, and the comedy often descends into stylings which can only be compared to the annoying kid in grade school who fancied himself as Rodney Dangerfield.

And for every good joke the series manages to conjure, it never seems to know when to let them go. Plus, the plots are wire thin, and instead of making us like these versions of Batman, Catwoman, and Riddler, it seems to rely on the listener's preconceived attachment to the characters.

Overall, it's as if modern SNL made a Batman radio drama. It has a few good bits, but it's mostly either a bore or a misfire.

Batman: The Audio Adventures might seem like a fun concept, but it apparently never got past the planning stage.

Ad Astra (2019)

"Ad Astra" tells us something we should hear.

[8/10 · 4 June 2020]

I will give no spoilers in this review, since I went in blind and was pleasantly surprised.

Ad Astra is a really beautiful film. Not only in its stunningly gorgeous cinematography and visuals, but in its development of its main character, and his "hero's journey" if you will.

Brad Pitt, who gives a subtle and realistically somber portrayal of astronaut Roy McBride, soars throughout the Solar System in an attempt to stop and hopefully reconnect with his father, Cliff McBride, who might cause the death of the human race.

Along the way, the audience is shown wonderful depictions of The Moon and Mars, complete with social and consumerism satire, and gets to experience artistic and influential cinematography.

In the end, the heart of the film is really what makes it so spectacularly memorable and important. The message it says, which I won't give away, is somewhat frightening, but ultimately humbling and truthfully inspiring.

The emotional and mental voyage Cliff goes through within his relationship with his father is heartbreaking and engrossing. In space films, it's rarely ever full of quiet moments filled with thought provoking questions. But Ad Astra is filled with those important quiet scenes, and also contains swashbuckling action. It finds a fantastic balance between fantasy and reality.

Some complain that the science isn't correct, and that the film is too slow. First of all, of course the science isn't realistic. We don't have colonies on the moon. Does no one recognize what "Science Fiction" means anymore? It's fiction people!

The pacing could be annoying and boring for some. But I'm so used to arthouse films, and intense character studies that this film was truly incredible to witness. A space fantasy with the development of an arthouse film. It's really something that isn't around much.

For any negatives, I do feel that while the message is important and eye-opening, the writing sometimes is extremely unsutble, especially in dialogue. The plot is a little basic and bare-bones, but honestly, it didn't bother me that much. We're so used to increasingly bulky and complex plotlines these days that a simple plot stands out in a crowd. But just because something is simple on the outside, it doesn't mean it isn't complex on the inside. Luckily, Ad Astra is.

So, in this time of quarantine, I don't see what's wrong with exploring the stars a little. Taking some time to look inside ourselves and realize just how important we really are is something we can all do. Ad Astra is getting a lot of negativity, but it surely doesn't deserve it. If you want to think, and if complex questions and answers is what you dig, Ad Astra is for you.

Maybe if you're lucky, a trip through space will help you appreciate our planet even more.

Transformers: The Last Knight (2017)

If I could rate it zero, I would.

[1/10 · 23 May 2020]

How this film isn't being considered one of the worst ever made is beyond me. After having the extreme displeasure of viewing it, I sat back and contemplated just how much a person must fail as a filmmaker to mess up seemingly every part about making a film. It's a rare thing these days. To find a film where by the end of it, the only positive you can find is that it had one or two cool shots.

I was stunned to realize upon watching the film, that the frame ratio changes almost every other shot, from IMAX to Standard. Not only does the frame ratio change, but the quality of the image changes, with IMAX being a cleaner image, and Standard being about as appealing as a cockroach in your bed once we've already been shown the IMAX quality.

Not only does the constant change in quality and frame affect the enjoyment and understanding of the film, but the characters are so incredibly poorly written and acted, that it adds a distinct and potent level of cringe to the film's already almost unbearable runtime.

The comedy is forced and bland, with jokes running on too long in a vain attempt to make the audience laugh. Honestly, it would have been funnier if Michael Bay had come on the screen halfway through the film, and told us just how stupid we are for giving him money. That would have been funny. But no, let's listen to acclaimed actor Sir Anthony Hopkins say, "Dude", and "Bro", twenty more times. Just astoundingly terrible.

To try and explain the plot would be like trying to explain the concept of a consistent tone to the writers of this film. By the end of the film, I still had no idea what was going on. That's not the calling card of a worthwhile film.

The whole film is like an assault of the senses. With the frame ratio and quality changing every five seconds, the continuity of the film being shamefully ignored, the lack of any interesting characters and then shoving us with forced exposition and "emotional" scenes. The tone never finds its footing, and jumps from dead serious to everyone trying to be a comedian in a second. Not to mention that the cinematography is so lazily done, that characters magically teleport to different locations because I suppose filming shots where people are leaving rooms is too boring for Michael Bay. The special effects haven't improved since the first one, and when I say that the humor will make you want to break your TV with a hammer, I mean that from the deepest depths of my soul. The humor should come with a warning. It's so cringey, that it could kill someone.

But hey, if your a regular Transformers watcher, this stuff isn't new to you. Because why watch something good, with a message and a point for existing, when you could watch Optimus Prime say his own name twenty seven times, and have Mark Whalberg have a bloated and unessecary talk about "chastity" with Sir Anthony Hopkins. (Seeing Sir Anthony Hopkins in a Transformers film is another thing I'll put on my list for why humanity doesn't need to exist anymore).

If you want robots saying horrible one liners, watch cliche backup characters and uninteresting main characters, and overall, if you would like to be given complete garbage to pay for, because Michael Bay knows you'll spend the money on it, then have a fun time with this film. There's plenty of robots hitting each other. But a part of us should be sad that filmmakers are allowed to be this knowingly lazy and horrible with millions of dollars. A film with this much money should not have failed at the simplest steps of making a film. And these companies, knowing full well how disgustingly poor these films are, are shipping out the lowest quality of "entertainment", because they know that even if they replace all the characters with cardboard cutouts, people will go watch it. It's a blatant sign of disrespect, that no one is fighting against. Sooner or later, all big blockbusters will be this horrible, because we're allowing these companies to be rewarded for their childlike actions. So, don't be surprised if the next Transformers film is filmed on a camcorder, and has no editing at all. You ask for it by paying to see the film.

Please...don't watch this movie. Ever.

Donnie Darko (2001)

Bizarre, but oh so great!

[8/10 · 23 May 2020]

Donnie Darko is a truly fascinating film experience. It's not a perfect film, but it's an ambitious one, and for the most part, it fulfills its ambition.

I will give no spoilers here, as the experience of watching this film for the first time is something I dare not strip away from any readers. For a small plot summary, Donnie Darko is a teen in high school who sleepwalks, and begins to experience ethereal visions from a ghostly rabbit named Frank, who informs him about a dangerous event, which plagues Donnie's life for a month.

Why is this film great?: Jake Gyllenhaal gives a stellar performance as Donnie Darko. The character goes through so many emotional beats, and Gyllenhaal nails each one. The teen angst is played perfectly, and he's truly someone we can all say we've felt like, or seen at some point. His development is realized expertly by Gyllenhaal, and is truly a character who has made a change by the end of the film. It's not heavy handed though, so you might have to go on a symbolism hunt whilst watching the film. Don't worry though, because it's a fun film to find symbolism in. Remember, in this film, the secrets lie within the subtext.

The script and direction from Richard Kelly are simply incredible for a first film effort. While some of Kelly's characters do have loose ends, and some aren't explained well or given enough screen time, the plot is fully realized, and mesmerizing. The twists in this film are confusing, but so ingenius once you understand the film. Kelly crafts a plot that makes sense in the end, and better yet, is not only constructed well, but has several meanings. The film is interpretable in many ways, and it uses ambiguity in the way ambiguity should be used: Sparsely, but effectively.

If you don't get this film upon first viewing like me, don't assume you didn't like it, and forget about it. Watch a couple of analysis videos, and it will not only make sense, but you might be like me, and feel like a big dummy for not noticing it the first time. That's the fun of watching film though! Learning about new things, and experiencing topics and messages in new visual experimentations and arrangements. Don't feel bad if you don't get it. It's meant to be understood over time. It's just that good of a film. It's the kind of film that lingers with you after the credits roll.

In conclusion, Donnie Darko suffers from some early 2000s corniness and has some faults in characters, but the plot and main character are so incredibly solid that it renders those mistakes seemingly unimportant and unnoticeable. You might not get it, but that's okay. Donnie Darko is a purposefully complicated film, and is also a purely emotional film upon first viewing. All that thinking comes after the credits roll. Not too many films these days make you think and feel directly after one another. Give this film a watch. I don't think you'll regret it if you give it a chance. It's a thought provoking film to view while in this time of quarantine!

Insomnia (2002)

Definitely One of Nolan's Best.

[10/10 · 23 May 2020]

I didn't know what to expect from this film. Upon watching The Dark Knight Rises only a few days earlier, I had heard that this was Nolan's worst film. Well, after seeing TDKR, which is riddled with unsubtle dialogue and bland pacing, I expected Insomnia to put me to sleep.

It did not. In fact, it's now in my top three of favorite Nolan films.

Here's why: Al Pacino gives a riveting and quite subtle performance as a detective plagued by mistakes in his past. As the mystery of a murder in a small Alaskan town begins to get more and more interesting, we learn more about how far Pacino's character is willing to go to reach justice, but we also see him falter, and succumb to more personal demons. It's a sublime performance, and I personally think he's one of Nolan's most layered and interesting characters.

All other cast performances are amazing, including a memorable turn from Hillary Swank, who plays her role with a sense of keen suspicion and humbled intellect. But, the real standout next to Pacino is Robin Williams. I will give no spoilers about his character here, but when he's onscreen, it's easy to see why Williams won an Oscar years prior. He's a master of acting innocent but disturbed all at once. A truly gripping performance, that absolutely holds its own next to Pacino's greatness.

The real beauty here is Nolan's direction. The tension is palpable, and is far more engaging and riveting than the few action scenes the film has, (though the action itself is great too!) The cinematography is top-notch, and really brings you into this small town world, adding a sense of paranoia and constant fear to each scene, as if someone is always watching, and no secret is truly unknown. Nolan creates an atmosphere through the performances that is perfect, and added to the location and cinematography, all three of them blend together strongly to form a fully matured motion picture. Truly worthy of being called a "thriller" in every sense of the word. Nolan's pacing may be off in TDKR, but not in Insomnia. Definitely not in Insomnia.

I was truly mesmerized at the moral quandaries the film presents. I can't speak too much about them since I don't want to give spoilers, but no other film I've seen, especially a detective film, has dealt and shown grief and regret in such a fascinating way. The lines in this world are grey, and even the best people make mistakes. Mistakes which the characters much learn to live with in order to fit their own justice. Its engaging questions and themes are explored in depth, and never come off as preachy.

In conclusion, Insomnia is truly one of Nolan's best, and is an underrated gem. Please watch this film. It deserves, and needs to be seen. A deep exploration of morality, filled with a tense atmosphere, and wonderful performances. Films like Insomnia are cinema at its grandest.

Joker (I) (2019)

Ambiguity is rarely the answer

[5/10 · 21 May 2020]

There is good in this film, I don't disagree there. It's certainly an ambitious film, and whenever a director decides to take a new route, I commend them. Todd Phillips decided to do something that most films aren't doing, but he didn't do it on his own. No, on the contrary, he stole from Martin Scorsese.

"Taxi Driver" and "The King of Comedy" references reign so much screen time in this film that it renders the plot completely predictable, and unoriginal. Phillips had an interesting idea, which was to detail how The Clown Prince of Crime was created. I'm a comics fan, and I'm not mad that they decided to do this. If only it could have been done better, instead of hiding behind the mask of homage, expertly disguising itself from the title of thief. In the end, it's a disguise. "Joker" does not pay homage, but steals. The cinematography is beautiful and haunting, and Joaquin Phoenix delivers a powerhouse performance destined to connect and resonate with many people for a long time. I won't comment on the claims of the film being irresponsible with it's messages of violence, because The Joker is a violent character. I didn't expect to go to a Joker film, rated R nonetheless, and see him "BOP!" people on the head with a rubber hammer.

What the film is irresponsible with though, is its plot. The script suffers due to an overabundance of ambiguity, and the inclusion of too many questions without ever getting sufficient answers. It raises several thought-provoking questions about mental health, corrupt politicians, and humanity, but only ever answers one, which is the concept of humanity. Treating others with kindness. That's a great message, and would have carried the film. But since there are so many messages stuffed in with that single message that don't ever get brought up again, it makes the impact of the humanity message falter.

I can forgive faulty messages though, and if that was the only fault, this film would get a 7. The biggest problem though is simply this: Phillips over utilizes ambiguity to make the film seem more intelligent. Without the ambiguous elements, the film's script would just be cliche, but still quality. It would have one takeaway, which would be to treat others nicely. Here's the issue with overusing ambiguity.

Phillips allows the narrative to be affected by Arthur's mental illness. I won't give any spoilers, but since Arthur is narrating the story, Phillips thinks that opening the doors to ambiguity, and allowing the audience to decide what is real or not will constitute an intelligent film. It doesn't. Instead, giving the option that everything wasn't real renders the film pointless. I think ambiguity in a few moments, at the end of a film mainly, is great. When it holds up the entire point of the film existing, and engulfs the legitimacy of the plot, that's a major issue. If the audience can decide if the entire film happened or not, you haven't made a worthwhile film.

If the director doesn't have the skill to write a point into their screenplay, but instead throws in questions that would make good points, and leaves the options open like a choose your own adventure book, that does not make a good film. Films should not be made if the director has nothing to say. It's technically the click-bait of film. Saying that you're going to say something important, but instead telling the audience to decide, and lazily throwing ideas at them.

Like I said, ambiguity is good in doses, and I'm not against it being used as the main method in telling a story, but it has to be done well, or else it threatens the necessity of the film, which should not lie in the audience's hands.

Phillips steals from better films to utilize for his plot, shots, scenes, his characters, and their motivations, rendering the film predictable. He brings up questions and themes which would give rise to interesting discussion and answers, but he never engages these topics enough, or at all, to ever make an attempt at a deep dive. Instead of answering or discussing, he throws it all into the cavern of ambiguity, rendering the fate of importance to the audience, which makes the film feel unimportant, and desperate to be awarded praise. Phoenix does a masterful job, and the cinematography is gorgeous, but the unsubtle dialogue, and overall needlessness of the film doesn't fully allow me to be invested into the world.

"Joker" wants you to think that it has something to say. But it never says anything in the end, instead, it only raises the questions, mistakenly drenching the film in ambiguity, so the audience would give it the depth it tries to convince the audience that it has. It succeeds in some moments, but in most, it reminds me of a chocolate bunny. It looks tasty, clean, and well made on the outside, but upon biting it, you find that it's hollow.

Capone (2020)

I'm pretty disappointed.

[3/10 · 12 May 2020]

I was excited for this film. Upon hearing the early reviews, I just assumed the critics didn't get it. Nope. They're right. I spent $10 on this film, and I regret almost every penny.

Here's why:

Tom Hardy gives a riveting performance as Al Capone. He's a Frankenstein-esque presence throughout the entire film. He stumbles around paranoid, grumbling in a raspy voice and shouting expletives. And while this sounds like severe overacting, he does it in a way which seems utterly real and mesmerizing. He's the center of attention every moment onscreen, and he deserves all the praise. He's pretty much the only great thing in a bad and mostly unimportant film.

Why is it so bad? Well, Josh Trank directed, wrote, and edited this film. While the direction and editing are serviceable at best, with them being nothing to shout home about, it's his script which is extremely poor.

To put it simply: "Capone" has absolutely nothing to say, and no reason to exist.

The script, once you meticulously rip out the unneeded ambiguity, is simplistic and infantile. It's merely a stripped down imagination of Capone's last year alive, and it's filled with only commonly known vague historic plot points to stretch out it's runtime. It doesn't explore these historic events besides recreating them on film. It adds no substance, and no depth. It's essentially like viewing a history book. Here's this scene, here's this scene, here's this scene, and the film ends.

From the trailers, I expected a character deep-dive into the mind of a mob boss plagued by dementia. But even the feverishly mad hallucination sequences serve no purpose, and offer no depth. It's like they're there to show off gore, lavish parties, and introduce a character that they never do anything with besides having him reference a pointless plot point that never goes anywhere as well. This film has nothing to say, and never makes an attempt to say something. It's basically just being a voyeur. We see moments in Capone's life in an unstructured and ambiguous manner, and then the film ends.

It does nothing with the one thing it presents, which is Capone's childhood, and what it does show makes no sense because it never takes the time to explain anything. Showing, and not telling is a very important part of storytelling. But when you have a simplistic plot with no depth, and you simply throw in meaningless ideas, references, and situations in an ambiguous manner, that doesn't make a script deep. In fact, it makes it even more empty.

It's like Trank wanted to do one scene in this film, and simply threw in stuff from Capone's life to try and make it a feature length film. It offers no new insights, or any interesting development to Capone as a man, or as a gangster. It's honestly utterly meaningless in almost every sense of the word. You can try and tell me that it's about a mob boss losing his power, but right at the start of the film, it's clear Capone can't do anything anymore besides grunt, speak in growling sentences, and move like a zombie. And by the end of the film, he's no different. Capone doesn't change into anything worthwhile, (besides an increasingly sicker old man), and neither does anyone around him.

I'm giving it a 3 purely because of Hardy. But if any future filmmakers are out there reading this, take this into consideration: If you have an idea, and you want to explore it subtly, go explore it! But make sure you show, as well as tell in the right moments. We've seen many times how insufferable a film is when it purely tells, and now, we have an example of when a film only shows, but doesn't tell. When making a film, don't balance your entire plot on ambiguity. Ambiguity is good in snippets, but when the story relies on it, it cannot bolster a full film. It will fail, because you as the filmmaker are not making a statement, or saying anything worthwhile. Instead, you're saying nothing by showing the audience nothing that can be tethered to anything important, since everything can be classified as being non-existent.

Confusing? Yeah, that's how the film feels.

This is not a mob-movie. Nor is it really a movie. It's a collection of moments made to seem like there's a coherent, structured, worthwhile story. Believe me, no matter how appealing it may be, there is no story. There is nothing except the exceptional performance by Tom Hardy. Don't be like me, and spend ten bucks on this film. I got majorly Ca-pwned by this picture.

The Dead Don't Die (2019)

Going on my guilty pleasure list

[6/10 · 12 May 2020]

This is an interesting film. While I certainly had an expectation of what it would be upon going in, (since I had already viewed Paterson), I didn't know it would be Jarmusch's attempt to make a mainstream film.

The comedy is as dry as the Sahara. If you don't like quick witted humor and dry delivery when it comes to jokes, this film will either annoy or bore you. I thought most of the jokes in the film landed, but that's mostly because of my love for dry humor.

Also, Jarmusch attempts to pay homage and spoof B-movies as well as George Romero's Living Dead Trilogy, and in some cases he delightfully succeeds. In others, it comes from nowhere and ends up as nothing. His attempts to be mainstream, especially with the use of 4th wall breaking can miss horrifically, and can land pretty well in some instances.

Overall, I'm split by this film. The horror fan and comedy fan inside of me loved this film, and the critic side saw that it was full of mistakes and miscalculations. I'm giving it a six instead of a straight five simply because this film has an innocent charm to it. Let me explain.

It feels like the kind of film to watch with friends on Halloween night. A film that instead of making you think, is a purely reactive experience. It brought back feelings of watching Night of The Living Dead, and it really made me remember why I love horror as a genre so much. The cast and crew definitely had fun making it, and it's easy to see within the film. Honestly, the worst crime a film can commit, even with mistakes, is to be boring. And The Dead Don't Die never bored me, but instead made me laugh and have a fun time at the cinema.

Is it perfect? No. Definitely not. It has problems with tone, has loose ends within the plot, and it's humor can sometimes impact the quality of the plot itself, (plus, if you're not a fan of gore, this film lingers on gore many times for laughs). But it's not boring, and it's got a quick witted, quirky sense of style and humor. It had good intentions, and I commend Jarmusch for trying something new.

It's a guilty pleasure for me, and is destined to become a cult film. I love it, but it's definitely not a great movie. It's a good one at best. And that's okay.