Change Your Image
siderite
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Deadpool & Wolverine (2024)
A delightful parody, but that's basically it
In a world where everybody is tired of superheroes taking themselves dead seriously while wearing fancy pajamas and stories that seem to be made by ChatGPT, here comes Marvel Jesus to save it all. But he really doesn't, because while the movie is lighthearted, well acted, lovingly written, it is essentially a parody of everything Marvel without actually having a story or a world itself. Case in point, my wife, who has seen most of the referenced Marvel movies and series, but is not into the lore, did not like the movie and didn't laugh at most of the jokes. The end credit scenes even show a lot of old footage and behind the screen of the films that this movie is making fun of, which really feels like a good bye. "We can't believe we pooled it off (pardon the pun), but it's probably the last one you'll see". It felt like those scenes where old friends laugh together about the past while one of them is dying.
In fact I think I got exactly why a lot of people liked the film, but felt something was off. It's not a Deadpool movie, but a Ryan Reynolds movie, in the sense that it wasn't the Deadpool character breaking the fourth wall, it was Reynolds playing himself dressed as Deadpool with a lot of actor friends. It if practically impossible to get invested in the world building because there is none. It's just bits and pieces of others. There is no fourth wall to be broken, it's all an in-joke. I guess the multiverse strikes again.
Bottom line: I had a lot of fun and laughed my ass off a few times, but this film shows both the incredible power comic stories have and their greatest weakness: you mix them up long and hard enough and you can't find anything to relate to. In the end, it's the new stories that will matter, the new characters that you fall in love with.
Hell Ride (2008)
Tarantino what?
Some overly optimistic guy recommended this as similar to Grindhouse. Which I've seen long enough ago to not remember it mostly sucked. He also mentioned the writer/director (Larry Bishop) did Underworld. Which was not very good, I thought, but I kind of dug it. And so I checked out the film: amazing cast, Tarantino's name attached to it, however flimsily, motorcycle gangs, sounds good - let's go.
First, it's not THAT Underworld, but one of the many films named thus. A lot of hot girls in it, which seems to be at least partially the reason why someone made this movie, but no Kate Beckinsale in black body leather.
Second, most of the amazing cast is cameoing. You have Dennis Hopper jumping around the movie on his own motorcycle when the plot needs to move somewhere, and you have David Carradine doing one scene. Even Vinnie Jones, who is one of the main characters of the story, just appears a few times looking tough as nails and mean as hell, but not doing much. Michael Beach? Few scenes. Eric Balfour? He is actually a lot in the film and he is looking good and hot. Why he didn't make it on the big screen I have no idea. He had the charisma, maybe he lacked the flexibility. And Michael Madsen who just plays himself as usual. I don't like him.
Which leaves the lead actor, with most of the screen time and playing the most influential character. Larry Bishop!? Hell no.
Now the story is one of a war between motorcycle gangs. Yet the motorcycles are only shown as transportation vehicles. I can imagine the same film with people riding buses. If you put the story together, you get something relatively simple, but they tried to make it meaningful by cutting it to pieces and mixing it up in a blender before editing it back together. And that was really weird because the editors were professionals and not, as I had expected, Larry Bishop.
Bottom line: this is a surprisingly bad film considering what went inside to make it. The hot girls alone could have made a more interesting movie just by walking around a park or something. Many of the actors in the cast could have carried large parts of the film like Angus Young would carry half an AC/DC concert in winter in his underpants when Brian Johnson lost his voice (true story). Yet this was just... not entertaining, informative, artistic or interesting in any way or shape.
You like motorcycle gang movies, just watch The Bikeriders (2024) or Combichrist music videos.
Hellboy: The Crooked Man (2024)
Pathetic money grab
A red cosplay suit does not a Hellboy make.
The movie starts with Hellboy and his colleague transporting a demonic spider to their headquarters. Up until the end we never see that spider again. It's this level of stupidity that accompanies the entire film. Each step of the plot makes little to no sense, not only logically, but even in the literary sense. There is nothing entertaining, exciting or even scary in the story.
Then there are the actors. All spewing some fake Appalachian accent and behaving like crazy for no apparent reason. Leah McNamara was the only thing there that seemed like trying to act. She had a minor role.
Finally, the direction. Or rather lack of it. Or it going all over the place. I understand low budget, but this was alternating between really cheap shots and some unreasonably high level effects that brought nothing to the story. The snake effect was cool as were some other minor things in the film. The SFX team did good.
Bottom line: I am not really a fan of the Hellboy movies and I've never read the comics, but this was bad for so many reasons... someone will go to hell for it.
Avec amour et acharnement (2022)
A good film based on a bad story
I haven't read the book this is based on, but after seeing the film and getting that WTF feeling, I had to see what other people thought and yes, the book was not well received. Which is in sharp contrast with the directing and acting in the film, which was really good.
In short, this film is more of a play than a film, just a few characters, a lot of talking, a lot of emoting, strong emotions that overwhelm reason. I don't like theater plays much and this film is a perfect representation of why not: a lot of noise and a story that brings little entertainment, even if - perhaps particularly when - it's well executed.
You have three major characters, two guys and a woman. The woman is with one of the guys, but has been thoroughly in love with the other one a decade prior. And suddenly he pops back up into their lives. And they can't just say "this is awkward and I will take no part in it", so they dance this ridiculous dance that has a relatively predictable poor ending. Oh, and then there is this 15 year old idiot son of one of the guys who pretty much has no bearing on the story, but wastes a lot of screen time.
You can't fault Juliette Binoche, of course, she can act better than most when she's sleepwalking, and Vincent Lindon was great, too. The direction of this story was good, too, in the sense that such a nebulous plot was made bearable. But in the end the story felt biographical, because it made little sense narratively, and all of the characters were really annoying most of the time.
Dragged Across Concrete (2018)
Tarantino with no humor or long speeches
The acting is very good and the story is solid, safe perhaps for the ending, but it's a very slow burn that doesn't really get anywhere special. Imagine a cross between a Tarantino film, with all the random characters all having their own motivations and maybe not related to the story per se and ready to be killed off at any time, combined with something like Heat and you get this film.
The fact that it's a good movie doesn't make it entertaining, though. This is a 2.66 hours film with very good characterization, but very little action until close to the end, no jokes, no flamboyant characters that entertain through their personality alone, no famous actors playing long time rivals. It's a pretty straightforward plot about people entering something without knowing how they're going to come out.
Personally I enjoyed it, but it felt at least half an hour too long and, as I said above, the ending was kind of forced. Nice to see Mel Gibson in a good role, though.
Slingshot (2024)
Well acted I guess, but so useless!
This has to be like the fourth or fifth movie featuring astronauts on a distant mission, but being about the psychological state of the lead character, in the last few years. This things are usually giving themselves away immediately: artificial gravity, LED light everywhere, big screens, big spaces, lectures for children about the Solar System given to trained astronauts, things unravelling or not making sense, but always, always someone obsessively thinking about people in their past: lovers, children, parents. Because it makes perfect sense for a person to go through years of rigorous training to perform a specific mission and then, when they get the job, out of a lot of hard working and highly motivated candidates, they spend it regretting things and thinking about the past. And they were the best candidate out of them all!
What's the point?! Who watched these and then said "yes, that's exactly what I needed! A psychological drama, but set in space, although nothing spacy really happens!"? Science fiction folk don't care about the drama of it, they want the action and the science and the gadgets and maybe to feel that there is more to life than just the daily whining of people. And drama people want some sort of highly emotional story involving multiple people, but somehow resembling their life, not some person in a small space having a fit. What a completely useless film!
So, yeah, let's call this small-space-fiction. And the writer is Nathan Parker, of Moon fame! He did one good film about a guy alone on a space station 15 years ago and thought to remake it, but without a story?
Bottom line: the story is so flimsy that I can't talk about it without spoiling it. All I can say is that this is not science fiction, because there is no science, and one can hardly call it fiction, because it doesn't have the coherence of fiction. It's like a nightmare that makes no sense and you barely remember when you wake up from it. The only positive thing is that it was decently acted.
Trap (2024)
Can be interpreted in many ways
I saw interpretations like "A love letter to his daughter" (talking about M. Night) or "pointless" or "why make me root for a psycho?" or "a straight white male defeated by women" or even "Never trust Alison Pill". They are all valid.
The story, which is not really spoiling anything, is that Josh Hartnett is a serially killing psycho who goes with his daughter at a concert for teens. There he learns that the whole thing is a trap to catch him. Right there you lose a lot of people, because that's the dumbest premise I've heard in a while. But if you accept that part, the rest is full of tension, good acting and some smart ideas. It feels like an escape room thriller.
The interesting part of Hartnett's acting is that he really manages to convey psychopathy. He acts the whole time as a loving father and a caring person, but there are the little things that make you understand he doesn't feel any of it, he just plays a game. I like the guy and I loved what he did with the role. With that in mind, I was pretty happy with the film until it got to about half - that's like 50 minutes of solid film. And then there is the rest...
The second half is dragging along some lines that are very difficult to believe, but I guess anything to give Night's daughter more screen time. Probably the idea was to show us some of the reasons and internal mechanisms that made the character who he is, but it was in such a roundabout way that loses yet another lot of people. Which leads us to the ending...
Which is bad. It kind of tries to set up a Hannibal/Clarice situation, without any of the sexual tension, but it just... fizzles out. And the last reveals are just silly.
Bottom line: we are introduced to a charismatic and very intelligent psychopath. Josh Hartnett does a brilliant job portraying him. But the film is also a vehicle for putting the director/writer's daughter on the big screen, which leads to tens of minutes of unnecessary scenes. And the story is (expectedly so from old Night) overly contrived and sometimes very dumb.
Dialogue avec mon jardinier (2007)
A painting in film form
This is the story of two men who form a bond, even if they are vastly different. Nothing happens in the film, really, and also everything happens. Life. The film is beautifully shot, the sun and beauty of the French countryside, the colors, the shadows, with a very carefully chosen soundtrack that doesn't make itself heard over a level that would subtract from the plot.
I thought Daniel Auteuil was great, but Jean-Pierre Darroussin steals the show with a shy, honest performance. There are no other real characters in the film besides these two, although we meet their wives and their daughters and their mistresses. It's all about the friendship they have, simple, direct, with no expectations, just like the garden one makes for the other.
Bottom line: beautiful film, calm, artistic in a way that doesn't shout "look at me how artful I am!". You probably have to be in the mood to see it. It's short, but slow moving.
Watchmen: Chapter I (2024)
As good as the film
In fact, although I don't remember the details of the film, to me it seemed that this film was following the exact same story and plot and scenes as the Watchmen movie. I understand that there is a comic from which the material is derived, but other than a rather ridiculous attempt to make it less violent, I didn't see anything different. What is the point of getting someone brilliant to make this film if all he does is follow existing content?
The first chapter stops when Rorschach is framed and sent to jail. I liked the animation, I already liked the story and I feel like the voice actors did a very good job. Michael Cerveris does a great Dr. Manhattan and Titus Welliver can always be depended upon to voice a character like Rorschach.
Bottom line: so far I fail to see why anyone would choose the film or the animation other than that they like one medium more than the other. The story, as brilliant as it is, is the same.
The Crow (2024)
I understand why people hate it, but one can enjoy it
I think most people hating on this film are people who watched the original The Crow (probably a long time ago so they don't remember it well anyway) and expected better or people who look at the cast first and saw that the love interest actress has the name FKA twigs. But if you get over that, you might watch this and say "meh!".
Because Bill Skarsgård is a decent actor and while he had almost nothing to work with, he performed well. The story itself is not much different than the original, only with some stupid additions that didn't bring anything valuable. The sets and effects are good.
The problem is the story and plot. Things were added for no reason and things were removed or changed equally unreasonably. For example you have no idea why this film would be called The Crow. There is no reason for the deep connection between people. Nothing happens really until 45 minutes into the film. Danny Houston's character starts as powerful and ominous to then get a pathetic finale. And so on. It It's like the writers and director had no idea what they were supposed to be doing. This was supposed to make you FEEL something. Even if it didn't make sense, it had to be emotionally jarring and impactful. Instead, it's just bland.
Bottom line: I don't think it deserves all the hate, but this is not a good movie, despite the efforts of the actors.
The Twisters (2024)
Ridiculous
Writing a good solid is hard, that is why writers spend years on a single book. There are a lot of people that go to Hollywood hoping to become actors, but the vast majority of them get rejected immediately, mostly because they won't put out, but also because acting is difficult, with all the emoting and expressioning and stuff. Also, making special effects is a craft that is being honed in decades, an eternal area of innovation and struggle. So surely with terrible writing, bad acting and cheap soulless special effects you can't make a movie, right?
Wrong! I present you: The Twisters, a film so hilariously bad that I had to watch through it all. The bittersweet pain caused by watching completely talentless people trying their best was excruciating. I truly believe this film should be taught at school films, together with The Room, which is itself orders of magnitude more captivating and well done than this.
Must watch while stoned, drunk or otherwise mentally challenged, but it will be worth it.
Dìdi (2024)
What coming of age really feels like
There is a whole genre of movies dedicate to coming of age, only they are almost always idealized, dramatized, exaggerated and/or strident. Didi feels very real, without being over the top in anything. In a way, it's a boring film, because it presents early adolescence as it truly is.
The story is about a small Asian kid who lacks confidence or life experience. His dad is away and he lives with his sister, his mom and his grandmother. He's like an Iron John poster boy. With this setup, most stories would have gone towards the bombastic life changing experiences, seen through the bright lens of hyperactive teens. Not Didi. It may be autobiographical, it certainly felt that way. Remember when you were so young you couldn't even comprehend why the thing you were doing were stupid?
Bottom line: its greatest strength is also the movie's greatest weakness. By being true to its characters, it left out the entertainment of its viewers. So you might like it a lot, if you're in the mood for honest self reflection, or maybe you will feel bored by it. Either way, I personally liked it.
Borderlands (2024)
A generic sloppy action sci-fi from people who don't understand games or sci-fi
If you want to experience something you have never experienced before in your life, try watching Tár and Borderlands back to back. Your brain will get a whiplash! How the hell did they make Cate Blanchett and Jamie Lee Curtis to play in this is beyond me. But it gets worse. The focus of the movie is almost the entire time on Tina, who may be the most annoying child character I have ever seen. Ariana Greenblat seems to be stuck in playing the most irritating characters ever: the little brat in Barbie, the little brat in Ahsoka, the little brat in 65, Velma in Scoob! When she was a little brat. I haven't seen any of the Boss Baby movies, is she an annoying little brat in that, too? Also in this movie, for some reason, a robot that makes no sense in the film, voiced by Jack Black. Only you don't notice him because no matter how much he tries - and he does try a lot - he cannot get his character to be more infuriating than the little girl's. Anyway...
To my surprise, the highlights of the movie were actually Kevin Hart playing the straight man and Florian Munteanu, whose physical presence is always imposing and who I think may have a bright future in Hollywood if he ever gets away from "huge warrior" characters. But you read that right: Kevin Hart is NOT the annoying comedic character in this film. I actually liked him in this film!
I have not played the games, so I had no expectations. I also knew that this was going to be a stupid movie, but I watched it anyway. Funny thing is that with the same kind of plot and the same basic budget there are people who've done A LOT more. The actors were fine, the special effects were fine, the production values were good. It was the story that was completely idiotic. I mean dumb even for Hollywood action movie standards. Way to go wasting all that cast and potential for skimping on the cheapest part of a movie!
Anyway, don't watch this, unless you really want to shut your brain off.
Inside Out 2 (2024)
I totally understood the back of the mind thing
... because I remembered that I liked Inside Out. Somehow I remembered that I enjoyed the movie, it was smart about describing emotions and it was a good film for children to understand themselves. Luckily, I have IMDb and I was surprised to see that I scored it a 6! I hated the film! I felt insulted by it. So how come I remembered it differently?
Almost 10 years later I am watching the sequel and ... I liked it more than my wife did. Which is not saying much, because she didn't like it. Everything was terribly strident and the behavior of the emotion characters weren't representative for that emotion most of the time, only in choice moments. But I didn't hate this one. I thought it was OK.
Surprisingly back in 2015 and now in 2024 is how little sexuality was scrutinized. If there was a hint in the original, in this one it wasn't even mentioned! She was supposed to be ready to be a college student! Which is ironic, since the whole premise of this sequel is that we should be honest with our experiences and learn from them all, without picking and choosing which one we think are appropriate for our growth.
Bottom line: most of the film did not really have a psychological equivalent, and that was its biggest flaw. The story was entertaining, possibly a little bit too energetic and colorful, but it is aimed a children, supposedly, so I get it. It may be better than the first film.
Radius (2017)
Good, but starts like Memorizu - Stink Bomb without the humor and gets into some extra stuff no one needed
There is an anime short called Stink Bomb from 1995 with the same concept and in the end it becomes a strong satire on the Japanese society. Radius starts much the same way, although the guy quickly deduces what the problem is. So far so good. There was even an attempt to call 911 which in the end is abandoned, which felt very much like it could be the start of a critique of American society, since everybody there seems happy to call 911 if it's about other people, not themselves.
However, from then things just get... boring, I guess? Memories (no pun intended) start to come back and with them personal drama and extra characters that in the end bring nothing to the story.
The ending is predictable given the film's runtime, too. It's not a satisfying one. One might still argue that the plot draws a lot from the the fact that normal citizens don't really trust the government for anything serious and personal, but in the end this is used just matter-of-factly and not really explored, so the film is not about this.
Is it sci-fi? There is clearly a sci-fi element to it, but again, it's just a simple premise to drive the story and left equally unexplored.
So what is it about? At the bottom of it, it's a kind of human drama story, with some thriller elements to it. A little disappointing given the things it stands on. But the direction is good, the acting is decent, Charlotte Sullivan is really beautiful and the movie is short enough to not chafe. Maybe take it as a "what if?" kind of thing.
The Watchers (2024)
Obvious talent, but also obvious directorial debut
This film had several good things going for it and then some bad ones. Let's start with the good: Irish Celtic mythology, good actors, good sets, good production value.
That being said, the story was very predictable, the ending was a missed opportunity being by far the weakest part of the film. The story made little sense. It's not that I got hung up on the details of what the Fae are, it's that they were portrayed both as intelligent creatures and brutal predatory animals. There are a lot of relatively new books that deal with that in a much more consistent and captivating way (see The Call, by. Peadar ó Guilín, for example). And then there are the characters: inconsistent, only fleshed out right before they needed to elicit an emotional response and so on.
I can't even say that the direction was bad. I didn't mind it or the editing. So maybe Shyamalan's daughter has what it takes already as a director. It's the story that was the huge letdown, so maybe she's not as good of a writer.
Bottom line: the plot and characterization left a lot to be desired, but everything else was OK, film-wise. Being a directorial debut I am willing to give Ishana Shyamalan a break and hope for improvement in the next film.
Peter Five Eight (2024)
So bad it would be funny, if not for Kevin Spacey, which makes it sad again
About seven or eight years have passed since the shameful history with Spacey, different "teams" attributing the shame to vastly different things, when he was still close to the peak of his career. To see him relegated to playing in films like this is beyond sad. No one should be given the power to so thoroughly destroy a man's career, life and legacy except in very clear cut cases where it is beyond a doubt that man did something worse than ruining another person.
But enough about Spacey. When the film started I expected it to be a scene from an in-movie production, waited for the director to shout "Cut!" and fire the writer who would write such things and the actress reading them so laughably bad. And yet, no, that's the film. It continues like that.
When Spacey enters the scene, he makes a silly face which is meant to be threatening. I didn't recognize him. He went old and bloated - again, refer to paragraph 1. And then, after coming out of the car with the hat on, he throws the hat into the car! It was his car hat! The dialogue that follows is only funny when heavily inebriated.
In summary, the only part of the film that is worth it is to hear the man read the lines: "With little regard for idle pleasures, I was doomed to play the villain's part. Here I am, a rail town amongst the vulgar and profane. In the depths of Hell". Quite true, Mr. Spacey, quite true.
The Beast Within (2024)
Gothic metaphor
So Kim Harrington lives in the true north with a wild and beautiful redhead and with his buddy James Cosmo. And he has a dark secret related to wolves. Jokes aside, that's the setup. He also has a daughter, which doesn't bode well for his secret.
This film is a very slow, dark, atmospheric thing with just four actors, a metaphorical miniature of domestic abuse. But even for its one hour and a half runtime, it feels too slow. And while I was preparing in my mind this very review, the film also chose to make it explicit that it may have been a child's fantasy after all, so not so metaphorical after all.
I liked the feel of the movie, the mood it represents. It's very gothic, reminding me of dark stories from one or two centuries ago. Unfortunately, my mind has been conditioned for the quick win, the blood and SFX fests, the snappy dialogues. In this one people barely speak, there is no characterization other than what we can glimpse from the girl's explorations. It's a filmed play, with very little budget.
I didn't need the explicit ending, though, it felt like an apology for the bait and switch: "hey, we meant it as a family drama! Sorry for the confusion!"
Bottom line: you could watch this while sitting in front of the fire in a cabin in the cold, but here in the middle of the sweltering city, the only thing it stirred in me was "it must be nice to be a werewolf up there in the highlands".
The Adventures of Mark Twain (1985)
Interesting, although a little outdated, view of Mark Twain
The film is very well done. It's beautiful and scary and a bit icky. While it focuses more on some of his less known works, like The Diaries of Adam and Eve, The Mysterious Stranger, The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County, it also probably borrows a lot from his autobiography and his Mississippi stories. Masterfully meshed up together, these are told from the perspective of Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn and Becky Thatcher who snuck on board of Twain's big balloon which is headed for the Halley's comet.
However, it also assumes some knowledge of Mark Twain and his work. Most of the things in it are more tips of the hat than actual adaptions. And the style, both the language and the way people act, it's quite contemporary with Twain rather than with something made in 1985 and certainly not easily digestible by 2024 people.
I did like it, and it did make me add Twain's autobiography on my to read list. Perhaps this is a good introduction into the great writer's work for newer audiences.
The Union (2024)
What the hell did I just watch?!
I have a weakness for Mark Wahlberg and I want to see him succeed in something else than underwear ads, I don't like Halle Berry and I think she should have never become an actress, but look here: J. K. Simmons, Mike Colter, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Jackie Earle Haley! How can you get together this cast, a big budget, and care so damn little?!
You have seen this film dozens of times. I don't mean this category of films, but this exact film! Only it was other actors, other McGuffins, other places, but the same exact story: good looking nobody gets dragged into high stakes spy stuff, the spies are more good looking and flashy than any good at what they are doing, especially shooting moving targets, there is some romance that ooh feels a bit illicit, but then why would you need romance to bring that vibe into an action movie, there are quips and socially awkward situations, a lot of faceless stunt actors that get hurt, there is an obvious twist, an obvious villain and an obvious outcome. And it lasts for almost two hours!
No, the longer I think about it, the less stars remain, so I'd better end this now. But what a pointless total waste of time and money! This kind of film should be demonetized by law.
MaXXXine (2024)
A bit slow, but masterfully done. I don't think people understood what it was
I see a lot of people rating this film low because they think it was supposed to be a fancy horror slasher. Not only it is not, but by making Maxine work in the exact same type of film in the movie, it tells you quite clearly it is not. It's rare to find a movie that successfully satires the responses to itself.
This movie is a fantasy. The things that you see on the screen are a bit over the top, "style over substance" and all that, because it's not reality, it's the fantasy of the main character, perhaps of all of the characters. Things may be, but probably are not, "real".
It's also a pretty well thought out meta satire, as it involves an actual actress playing a porn star wanting to become a classic film star in a horror movie that mirrors the events in the film and her personal life. Everybody in Hollywood wants to be an actor, the beast swallows or spits out what it may, so all of the people in the film are characters and all of the places in the film are stages. Instead of watching what Maxine does, listen to what Bender says. That's the spirit of the film and the rest is just a matte painting, everything's a stage.
Bottom line: a noir satire of Hollywood, mixing crime, horror and , of course, the movie industry to great effect. I felt like the pacing was a bit too slow, like Maxine's drawl, and I can't say I got excited by the action, but at a cerebral level I appreciate it a lot.
You Hurt My Feelings (2023)
A low key, but very relatable, movie
I am glad I watched this. A bunch of middle class Americans, all working in creative or humanist domains and feeling burned out, going through the motions until a rather random event makes them look deeper at the honesty of their relationships. This is not some kind of mind blowing performance, but a low key subtle approach that hits you when you realize you're doing exactly what the characters are doing: the need for external validation, the fear of hurting the feelings of others, the overblown importance you give to your own feelings and the imagined rights of having them protected, while also getting honest opinions for the people around you.
It's a apparently simple film, with much hidden depth, with none of it hitting you over the head or stating what you should do and, so rare for films nowadays, close to one hour and a half.
Bottom line: it's called a comedy-drama, but I didn't feel it was either. Yes, there are funny and dramatic moments, but they don't define this introspective tableau of our emotional insecurities. It's not a "ha ha!" film, nor does it bring tears in your eyes. It takes a kind of contemplative mood to enjoy the movie, but I would recommend it.
Hit Man (2023)
Glen Powell's charisma barely saves this film from being a snooze fest
The issue with this film is that it has no real stakes. It's about a "boring" man who is pushed to roleplay and discovers he can change. It even says so through some internal dialogue that really didn't help the film, since he is a professor of psychology and philosophy or something. But there are no real threats or twists to the story. It just goes linearly from A to B. Glen Powell is fun, Adria Arjona is beautiful, they have good chemistry and that saves the movie, but try to imagine it without that bit and it feels like a slapstick documentary.
And all the other characters are really really unlikeable, from the judgmental police officers who use the main character while belittling him all the time, the douchey colleague and police captain to the self absorbed college students he teaches. It sends a message of "in this world of worthless people, you are entitled to do anything, even murder, because whoever gets to judge you is beneath you". Only it does this in a bland and probably inadvertent manner.
If you want the hot tension, just watch The Postman Always Rings Twice. If you want romance watch anything with Ryan Gosling, if you want undercover cop crime drama, watch Discovery Channel. This film, unfortunately, tries to mix them all up and to add a Linklater vibe to it and it falls flat.
Balle perdue (2020)
A decent effort, but ultimately really dumb
No, I don't mean dumb like Fast and the Furious, I mean stupid screenplay. The movie switches from physical violence that makes no sense, to people making stupid decisions or refusing to talk to others to get more information (remember, these are cops we're talking about) to boring discussions, to car chases that make no sense. The characters behave erratically just to fall into the narrative of the film, which is quite bizarre. The ending is so contrived that I almost laughed out loud.
That doesn't mean the film doesn't have its good qualities. The actors were decent, the action was believable - less so at the end, but overall, even the production values, which tended to go towards the cheap, were OK. The only thing that really made little sense was the plot, which was not silly like American movies, it was just weirdly convoluted and having parts that had no business being there. Would it have hurt to ponder a little on what you're writing before you start filming?
Bottom line: someone tried too hard to make a cheap Jason Statham movie when they had the potential of a superior and original movie instead.
Arcadian (2024)
Ultimately boring, even if the cast showed promise
This is NOT a Nicholas Cage movie. His character is never explained, has no backstory, he's just a generic father of two boys in an apocalyptic world with a few scenes where he does nothing special. Any other actor would have covered that just fine. The world is not explained either, it's yet another of those vague situations where creatures that can be shot, burned, stopped by wooden doors arrived out of nowhere yet somehow managed to destroy humanity.
The highlight of the film is actually the cast: Jaeden Martell and Maxwell Jenkins were great with good chemistry playing two very different brothers and Sadie Soverall was cute and convincing in most of her scenes. To be fair, she didn't have too much to work with. Oh, and the creature design was... really weird. I liked it, but I can't imagine what went through the head of the film makers when they went with that design.
Other than that, though, it's the same story you've seen a thousand times: somehow a group of people survived in a kind of tenuous status quo when one of the group, usually a horny teenager or a mewling child, breaks the pattern up. There is nothing in the story that validates its production other than "we can do the same thing, but cheaper, and we convinced Nick to play in it".
Bottom line: it must have made its production money, because it looked cheap as hell. It had good things going for it, but the movie did nothing with them.