Rodent's Reviews: PART DEUX!

This is how I use the Popcorn Ratings

0%
1-10%
11-20%
21-30%
31-40%
41-50%
51-60%
61-70%
71-80%
81-90%
91-100%

I use a combo of directing, writing, acting, effects, overall enjoyability, finished product to judge my rating

I also give my reviews a Rodent Stamp Of Approval:
- As it says, watch it now. NOW NOW RIGHT NOW!
- Good movie for some, but not for others
- This movie is poo. Avoid at all costs

Disclaimer:
A couple elements of my reviews, for instance the cast and crew list order, and plot synopsis, are paraphrased from Wikipedia.

Everything else in my reviews, is my own work.

Rodent's Reviews Part 1 can be found here: https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=27559

__________________

I'm a little rusty, this is my first written review in over 6 years... but...

... take a seat, boys and girls, and let's begin:


---
Plot:
In the distant future, Duke Leto of House Atreides, ruler of the ocean planet Caladan, is assigned by the Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV of House Corrino to replace House Harkonnen as the fiefholder of Arrakis, a harsh desert planet and the only source of "spice", a valuable psychotropic drug that imparts heightened vitality and awareness to its users. It is critical for faster-than-light interstellar travel, as it grants Spacing Guild Navigators the limited prescience needed for safe navigation. Shaddam intends to have House Harkonnen retake the planet with the secret aid of his Sardaukar troops, eradicating House Atreides, whose spreading influence he considers a threat to his power. Leto is reluctant, but sees the advantages of controlling Arrakis and forming an alliance with its native population, skilled fighters known as the Fremen.
---
Review:
Slow, quiet, yet somehow exciting to watch as it unfolds.

The cons of the movie, is there's one major thing when compared to "modern standards" and modern audiences.

I say modern standards, because by modern standards, Dune suffers with not having massive action set pieces and CGI explosions, enormous battles filled with Ready Player One levels of battle scenes, and no near-misses every 7 seconds.
There's also no Avengers: Endgame third act or some kind of hero-meeting that makes the audience cheer.

And this, might well be why it was relatively warmly received by a majority of younger audiences.
83% on RT (which isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination), and some non-critique audiences felt it was too slow in pace or not actionified enough.
I think the movie suffered from word-of-mouth too. Some saying it's "overly boring", meaning other potential, possible future fans, didn't go and see it.

The other thing that may have irked younger audiences is Zendaya's involvement.
The movie was seemingly heavily marketed with her face on it... yet she's in the movie for a plum-total of around 4 minutes, and has maybe 3 or 4 lines of dialogue.
I saw some reviews from younger viewers saying they went into the movie because of her, and were annoyed she's barely seen.
So bad marketing may have marred the movie's credentials a little.
---
It's a shame, because, well, because of the pros:
Dune is not meant to be... that.
Don't let word-of-mouth stop you seeing this movie.

Dune is also considered something akin to LOTR... unfilmable.
Yet Denis Villeneuve managed it to a major extent.

When Villeneuve was announced to direct the movie way back in around 2018 or 2019, I was hesitant but excited.

See, I love Villeneuve's work. Prisoners is one of the best movies I've ever seen with its thought provoking subject and its quiet, unassumingly tight photography and dim lighting.
Blade Runner 2049 is probably one of the strongest sequels ever made too.
So when Villeneuve was penned in as director, writer and producer, I felt within myself that if anyone could do it, he possibly could.

Now sure, there's elements of the novel left out... and some of the sheer scope of the original novel feels held back in this movie... but that's kind of the case with every novel adaption ever made.

Some things must be sacrificed, otherwise the movie would be 28 years long.

But with sense of scope being filtered back, making the movie a more interpersonal viewing, there is still the sense of actual scale there.
Everything we see in the wide-shots is vast with its horizon-wide panning shots and 30 second long aerial shots of deserts and enormous structured cities, and this makes the character driven story all the more potent.

The viewer begins to feel as if they're part of this enormous world because of the small, close-up shots of the cast, backed up with those occasional shots of outer space, enormous grandios stone-built halls, and sprawling deserts.
It gives a sense of proper scale to the actual story.
And story, is something sorely missing from those "modern standards".

This is where Dune shines amongst those modern standards.
Shines like a partical of Spice, suspended and floating alone in an empty room.
---
I won't get into the acting too much... but let's just say that Stellan Skarsgård literally chewing his way through his scenes is a standout performance.
Timothée Chalamet as well nails a role that I thought was out of his range. He's surprisingly good as our hero Paul Atreides.

The effects of the movie are top drawer too. Nothing in the movie feels disjointed or overly done, or done for the sake of doing it.
They use practical, green-screen, full-on CGI, camera tricks, you name it... and it all blends together seamlessly.

Plot:
Replicants are bioengineered humans, designed by Tyrell corporation for use off-world. Their enhanced strength made them ideal slave labor.
After a series of violent rebellions, their manufacture became prohibited and Tyrell Corp went bankrupt.
The collapse of ecosystems in the mid 2020s led to the rise of the industrialist Niander Wallace, whose mastery of synthetic farming averted famine.
Wallace acquired the remains of Tyrell Corp and created a new line of replicants who obey.
Many older model replicants - Nexus 8s with open-ended lifespans - survived.
They are hunted down and 'retired'.
Those that hunt them still go by the name...

Blade Runner

---

Review:
Blade Runner is a classic, and one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time. Combining real storytelling and some of the greatest effects ever put on screen, and an absolute masterpiece by Ridley Scott, surpassing even Alien in his genius... a follow-up, especially in today's climate of overly used CGI and pretty much all big-budget movies have little to no actual soul, the word "wary" doesn't come close to my concerns.
But, (and this is a controversial opinion) Ridley Scott is inconsistent at best.
He makes either a masterpiece, or mediocre movies.

So, my second thought after my initial worry, was that not having Scott as the director or producer, or even the writer, was probably a good thing.
And, I said this in my previous review of Dune about Villeneuve, if anyone could do it, it was probably him.

2049 didn't disappoint.

But, ok, there's a couple things wrong with the movie... and the first being that it's kinda linear.
There's nothing really that will change anything in the industry in terms of the storytelling.
It's a pretty simple ABC, 123 set of circumstances that lead to the ending.

Another thing, is that it relies too often on twists.
The twist about K's identity, the twist behind the bones found in the box, the twist of who "the child" is, the twist that Deckard is still around with the question as to whether he's a replicant or not still unanswered... the twist of Luv's abilities that are different to other replicants, the twist of who Mariette actually is... etc, etc.

It feels as though the movie is trying to throw as many curveballs as possible amongst that ABC, 123 screenplay.
It makes the scenes and acts feel a little unconnected at times. Like, it goes ABC, 123, curveball... ABC, 123, curveball... ABC, 123, curveball...

A couple twists here and there are good, but almost every character having one, it gets a little off-putting.

Another thing I think marred the movie, is that Ford's return as Deckard was spoiled by the trailers and marketing.
Like with Dune, Villeneuve's marketing team needs a bit of an overhaul.

The good thing/s though... it's not complicated to follow as it chops and changes between the various twists, and I like that.
A movie with so many turns could have been impossible to make sense of, but they managed to make it simple enough to just sit and watch it all unfold as it goes along.
The other thing I like, are the small touches that throw-back to the original movie.
Small soundbites, some nostalgic photography, the fact that the movie has some genuine scope to it with some of the shots across the sprawling cityscapes and farming areas, and the junkyard that seemingly goes from horizon to horizon that's filled with scavengers and an orphanage.

The piano key was a nice touch as well, becoming a throw-away set-up and pay-off in the 3rd act.
As too is Sapper Morton's initial speech to K about miracles and the relationship between K and Joi, and I absolutely loved the way that Luv and Wallace react to each other.
The background of the movie as well is also packed with little details and touches of real-world trinkets and a sort of "lived-in artistry".
It's those little touches and overlooked details that make 2049 like the original movie that was packed with tiny details and organic, world building touches.
The atmosphere is there as well with rainy scenes, dirty streets, the weather effects adding depth to scenes, though the movie isn't quite as "smoky" as the original, which is something that always bothered me a little with the original with all the steam and smoke in every scene.

I also didn't mind that this movie is driven by a MacGuffin, in this case "the child".
K's purpose is to find it, the entire plot revolves around it, because his/her very existence could, ahem, "break the world".

The other thing I loved about the movie, is the useage of actual sets combined with CGI only when it was needed, and the touches of practical effects as well.
The CGI also doesn't disappoint either. The aesthetic is akin to the original movie (which used processing and camera trickery), with the addition of the in-universe tech being more advanced.
I think the weakest piece of CGI, is the de-aged Sean Young. I wasn't fooled I'm afraid. It looked ok, but there was something not quite right with it.

But, the only way I can think to put the whole aesthetic is that it's both fresh and new, but also recognisable as Blade Runner, at the same time.
Bravo, filmmakers.

The acting is solid too throughout.
Gosling as K is perfect.
De Armas as Joi is also stunning.

Ford returning as Deckard though is a bit hit and miss. He's not exactly playing Deckard, he's playing Harrison Ford. Kinda the same way he did with Han Solo in the Star Wars sequels.

The standout for me though, is Jared Leto as Wallace.
Damn this guy is menacing.
Full of mystery and intrigue, eccentricity, wonder, broiling anger almost at times too.
Hard to believe this is the same actor that gave us Joker and Morbius.

Great reviews!

I just rewatched Dune (for the fifth time) the other night, and it is just so damned good. I was also on the fence about Chalamet when i first heard about the casting, but man, he just nails it. I have watched the interrogation scene with the Reverend Mother about 25 times, and they both just absolutely kill it in that scene, and that is with one of the actors wearing a veil!

Fantastic film.

__________________

I think that might be the scene that made me reverse my thoughts on Chalamet as well.
It's one of those real acting scenes where he just has to sit there and literally pretend something's happening.

They just convey what is happening so well with their acting. The witch is there to put down Jessica's arrogance by killing her son to punish her insolence and audacity. Her haughty demeanor and surety is clear on her face and in the way she holds herself. There is a moment when the power just all of a sudden shifts, Paul looks up, and the mother realizes that not only is he the one, but that she and her order are totally screwed. None of this is conveyed by dialogue, but it is clear as day.

Eh, I think it's good, but I can't quite go that far.

I dunno, I do like Alien more than Blade Runner, but...

The technical aspects of BR far outweigh Alien.
Look at some of the wide shots of the city with the Spinners going by... they had to do something like 14 passes using motion-controlled cameras and then superimpose fire and stuff as well with more passes.
All done on celluloid.
Then there's the actual sets with smoke and rain etc, and extras involved, and the choreography of those elements.

Alien is amazing, no doubt about it. A masterpiece in horror and suspense. But Blade Runner is definitely a "better" movie overall.

Plot:
In 2021, a mysterious loner is living on a farm, and has been predicting the end of the world for decades.
After his death, he leaves all of his belongings to his estranged daughter and her children, including the farm itself.
Amongst the property and belongings he left behind, are the bits and pieces of highly specialised scientific equipment, and the remnants of what used to be the Ghostbusters.
---
Review:
Odd movie this one.
It shouldn't work.

After the debacle of 2016 and the backlash Sony received, they returned to the Ghostbusters family, Ivan and Jason.
The backstory here is that Jason had planned but not executed a 3rd script for GB3 years before, but simply sat on the idea without developing it.
2016 happened, and the rest is basically history.

I was wary of the movie though once the cast had been announced.
Grace as Phoebe in the lead... backup from Wolfhard, Logan Kim and O'Connor... made me grind my teeth that they were maybe making some kind of Saturday morning live-action kid-flick.
Gladly though, what we've been treated to is both a kind of fan-service, and a genuine 3rd movie at the same time.

With Jason's writing and direction, and Ivan's guidance, plus the backing of a talented cast, the filmmakers have managed to create something that's fun, spooky in places, nostalgic, and also brings new things to the table.

Now, there's a couple things wrong with the movie.
The first being that fan-service I mentioned.
It doesn't exactly pander to the audience in the same way that maybe Rogue One did, or even Force Awakens and Jurassic World... but it does have all those Easter Eggs laced throughout with pieces of equipment dotted here and there, nods to GB1 with trinkets and props and the occasional line of dialogue.

The movie also, for some weird reason, seems to ignore GB2 when the characters are talking about historical events... and looking online, GB2 is still canon according to the filmmakers... so I'm not sure exactly what happened there. Maybe it was cut for timing or something.

Which brings me to the screenplay and writing, timing etc.
This movie is almost perfect.
It rolls out nicely, and doesn't lose the audience with anything too complicated, and also doesn't lose the audience by being boring or overly zany.

There's a slight wobble in timing near the middle of the movie once Phoebe gets hold of a working proton pack with her pal Podcast (Logan Kim)...
They immediately take it out for a test-run, and immediately come across as ghost... which then immediately leads into the car chase scene and the gunner seat (great nod to the 80s cartoons by the way).

It felt a bit rushed in that 7-or-so minute sequence.
I'd have liked to have seen maybe the characters having to get used to firing the neutrino wand and struggling with things before going on their first hunt.
Still though, the sequence does include them struggling during the actual chase and entrapment of a ghost, but it still felt a little forced.
There was no real comedic lead-up to the similar scene in GB1 where the main 3 basically destroy a hotel ballroom because they're essentially cowboy tradesmen.
Once that scene is over with though, the movie balances itself back out again.

What I did love about the movie, even with it forgetting about GB2, was the familiarity it had with the original two movies.
It feels like a Ghostbusters movie.

It's fun, funny, exciting, has a couple little pieces that harken back to the set-up and payoff of "turning the land, never planting anything" in a similar way that the original used "don't cross the streams" as its payoff.
It's nice to see as well, that the filmmakers actually love this IP rather than just making it for the money.

I think along with all the familiarity, the one thing I wasn't keen on, was Zuul, Vinz and Gozer again?
With Callie and Grooberson as a repeat of Barrett and Tully?
It makes it fell like a re-tread of the original plot.
Plus, and I'm laughing typing this: We had skybeams!

Gladly though this time having the backstory of kids and grandkids doing all the discovering, it works.
---
And that's really the gist of what I'm trying to pinpoint... they were damned if they did, and damned if they didn't.
In this case, the cons are forgotten because the pros are so good... they are all kinda cancelling each other out and the movie felt as though it was in safe, loving hands.
---
As for loving hands and understanding the lore... we have a stellar cast.
Logan Kim might be a little annoying sometimes, but, he's likeable.
Wolfhard and O'Connor as the secondary characters play it well too. They seem to be having fun playing off as the (almost) teenage lovers with Wolfhard desperately trying to get the attention of the girl he's taken a shine to.

Rudd and Coon as Gary Grooberson and Callie are brilliant to watch as their blossoming romance grows, before they get thrown into an apocalypse. They have probably the best chemistry in the movie.
Coon in particular has a real mom feel about her. She somehow plays both relaxed and stresses at the same time.

Mckenna Grace as Phoebe though. Wow.
12-13 year old leading lady, in an 80s style nostalgic Ghostbusters movie?
I absolutely love her in this film, she's the soul of this movie and carries a lot of the weird dialogue really well. Kid's got a future ahead of her.

The rest of the Ghostbusting team are more a lengthened cameo.
I won't spoil it, but it was fun to see them again, even if it was short lived... and Aykroyd rattling out his 30-second-long speech to Gozer is great to see.
Aykroyd loves long complicated lists

Now, the bit I've been putting off writing about.
Harold Ramis' Egon Spengler.
I was intrigued... then I cried, and then I laughed.
And then I cried again.
It's a lovely homage they did throughout the entire movie, and the beautiful goodbye to Harold as well in the 3rd act.
For that, it's a bravo, and standing ovation from me.

Been a while...

Plot:
A group if childhood friends dreaming of a better life away from Weyland-Yutani, decide to steal cryo-pods from a long abandoned space station called "Romulus and Remus".
Upon entering the station, their nightmares come true, as it's infested with Xenomorphs, and the group must run, hide and fight for survival.
---
Review:
Sigh.
So much missed, and so much promise that was never delivered.

After the debacle of Prometheus and Covenant, Romulus gave us so many promises that were then broken by the editing room and studio interference.

See, the movie looks beautiful.
Aesthetically, it's everything an Alien movie should be.
It's dark, grimy, has actual sets... no holographic stuff as seen in Prometheus and Covenant, and goes back to feeling like an actual, palpable thing that actually has substance.
But that, sadly, is where the real substance of the movie starts and ends.

See, we're greeted to a bog-standard movie, that lifts all the other plot points, scenes, dialogue, storylines, and everything in between, from all of the other Alien movies that came before it.

And this isn't just references... it's made up of entire plots and dialogue from the other movies.
The movie reminded me Ghostbusters: Afterlife, The Force Awakens, The Thing (2011), and the first two Jurassic World movies.

What makes Romulus stand out though from those other remakes, is the movie takes it upon itself to reference movies that canonically, haven't happened yet.
It's based after Prometheus, Covenant and Alien... but before Aliens... and yet somehow it references Aliens, Alien 3 and Resurrection.

And for some reason, some of the soundbite references are nonsensical too... like the Xenomorph squeal when Dallas in Alien is captured/killed is referenced when a laser goes off.
And for some reason, every, single, piece, of, machinery, makes the exact same noise as the landing gear from the Dropship in Aliens.
It's really odd.

So basically... the entire movie is essentially Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007).
It takes all different pieces of everything that came before it, cherry picks what it wants, and jams it into a 2 hour run-time... at least though Halloween (2007) had the balls to call itself a remake.

Another thing the movie does, is essentially retcons Ripley's victory in Alien.
You thought Alien 3 stamped on Aliens... this movie stamps on Alien... because, spoiler alert, the Xenomorph from Alien, survived.
Ripley now, has never had a victory.
Ever.

Because of Romulus.
And the title also doesn't make sense, because the ship/station is called "Romulus And Remus".

The other problem is inside of the 3rd act where the filmmakers ran out of plots to steal and had to resort to the Newborn from Resurrection... which was essentially reused once before already at the end of Prometheus.
The 3d act also sees our Final Girl, who has never held a rifle before let alone fired one, floating in zero-gravity, and taking out an entire nest of Xenomorphs single handedly.
Which just felt odd after seeing what just one Xeno can do to entire crews of humans, and Aliens showed us what they can do as a colony.

I won't get into the acting... other than:
We have a terrible looking CGI Deepfake of Sir Ian Holm.
Two of the male leads have annoying British accents... and I'm British and found it annoying.
Our Final Girl in Cailee Spaeny sounds drunk sometimes.
And everyone else is cannon fodder.

David Jonsson as the imaginatively named "Andy" is a standout performance though.
He plays in essence, two different roles depending on what program is controlling him.

Plot:
An alien cargo pilot by the name of Mills, who looks like a Human, crash lands on Earth 65 million years ago.
His ship is hit by a meteor shower and is destroyed.

He accepts his fate that he's the only survivor of the crash... but then, a young child by the name of Koa appears in the wreckage, and he has to lead the scared and lonely child to an escape pod to get off planet, before the rest of the meteor that caused the crash, hits Earth, and wipes out all life, and their own lives.
In their way though, are the last of the Dinosaurs... and a fight against time to escape the asteroid becomes secondary in a fight for survival against these creatures.
---
Review:
Another missed opportunity... but is strangely entertaining and engaging.

65 is on odd one.
It has huge fantasy and sci-fi elements on what was marketed as a Dinosaur Survival Horror...
See, even the Dinos are very fantasy based... the entire movie smacks of 60s B-Movie when it comes to the creatures, and has the added layer of sci-fi-space-creature-feature as well with the alien ship crash landing etc etc.
It's kinda disjointed really.

But, as a B-Movie with a $45m budget, it's almost refreshing to see an original take on an idea such as this... even if it doesn't always work.

I mean, in a world of remakes packaged as sequels, this movie does stand out as something a little more, well, imaginative.

But, there are a number of small hints, nods, and homages to other movies in 65.
Aliens especially... with a kinda of Ripley and Newt dynamic.
There's also a couple sound-bites lifted directly from other movies like War Of The Worlds that felt a bit jarring.
The WotW sound-bite is the "bing, bing, bing" noise of the Martian's Heatray for example.

Gladly though, the little nods and hints, are very few and far between...

The originality of the storytelling is a little disjointed though in that the "aliens" look Human... they speak English, with Koa speaking something different making a nice clash of cultures between the two characters... but the Human-Alien route and having a name like "Mills"?
It's almost as if the movie was rewritten in a committee to be sure that actor faces were seen on screen rather than using prosthetics or CGI to "alien them up a bit".

The movie doesn't quite seem to know what it wanted to be... and went for the safe option of just having Humans Vs Dinosaurs Vs Meteor...
What I'm saying, is it could have been better in character aesthetics.

This is meant to be an alien race, on Earth, during Dinosaur times. It works, but feels a little tacked on with the way the characters look and act.
A little, well, bland.

The CGI is tip top though... the spaceship stuff is the first thing we see, and some of the space scenes are beautifully rendered.
The Dinosaurs are odd though... as they too, like our alien protagonists, felt, well, disjointed.
They're brilliantly rendered, and move perfectly... they're also extremely menacing... but... they don't look like real Dinosaurs.
They're more fantasy based and make-believe... so again, it feels like a throwback to the 50s and 60s where olde time filmmakers would superglue a paper fan to the back of the bearded-dragon, and hope it worked.

It doesn't damage the movie exactly... but the marketing basically told us it was Humans Vs Dinosaurs... but what we actually get, is Human looking Aliens, fighting Fantasy Monsters.

Again though, going back to earlier... it's just so nice to see something original for once... even if it is a mis-marketed creature-feature.

One thing I did like though, is amongst the greenscreens and tennis balls on sticks to guide the actors on where the Dinosaurs would be... they did actually shoot in some real locations.
Thumbs up on that one.

There's only two actors on show really, with a couple cameos in flashback scenes of Mills' family.
Our main two are Adam Driver and Ariana Greenblatt.
Both are excellent, with Driver being as reliable as ever, but he's not given anything especially challenging to do apart from act as a reluctant father figure and protector of a young child.
Greenblatt especially though is showing us the range of new talent coming through the ranks of Hollywood. She's actually really solid considering I get the impression all she had to work with was greenscreens and tennis balls on sticks.