More of a dreamlike snapshot of time in the 1970s than a potent story in its own right.
Narratively structured around the friendship between a teenager with grand ambitions and a twenty-something with an immaturity streak, and the romance/not-romance developing between them.
Mostly it’s a series of moneymaking schemes strung together over a single summer, not really coalescing into any more plot than the emotional journey of its two protagonists requires.
In the grand ouvre of PT Anderson films, this one kinda sits around the middle — pleasant enough and very well executed, but not as gripping as a Boogie Nights or a There Will Be Blood.
Stripped back and draped in stark, Expressionist production design, Joel Coen’s adaptation is a loving marriage of stage and cinema—playing off the strengths of both mediums to create something greater than the sum of its parts.
Visually stunning, with A-grade performances. A total masterclass of simple, direct adaptation: it’s a highly classical take, so your mileage will vary depending on your appreciation for traditional Shakespeare.
If that’s at all your jam, this comes highly recommended.
Gorgeously shot, wonderfully acted, ultimately a fairly standard thriller.
Maybe I was waiting on a supernatural turn that never came and am judging it based on my expectaions, but I was left a little cold, mostly appreciating its craftsmanship and aesthetics from a distance without feeling any real investment in the story or characters.
It’s certainly very well executed, though, and worth checking out.
Chock full of blunt exposition, awful logic and bad character choices… but that’s kinda what it’s going for?
It wants you to be yelling at the screen, wants you to be engaging with its trashiness—it’s explicitly stated in the opening sequence that this ain’t “elevated horror”, this is schlock.
Still, for all its pseudo-meta commentary, its not especially clever, nor does it really bring anything new to the franchise other than waving its hands around and pointing out things it knows about itself.
Probably best for a drunk watch with low expectations and heckling.
This might be the best cinematic incarnation of Batman ever. More Noir crime thriller in the vein of se7en or Zodiac than your standard action blockbuster fare.
That’s likely to turn some people off it, but when that Batmobile roars to life like a godsdamned demon or The Bat walks down a black hallway lit by only the gunshots of the goons he’s taking on, it’s hard not to pick up what it’s putting down.
Pattinson’s Bat is brooding and serious, but he also recognizes he is supposed to help people. He’s also a brilliant detective — something often overlooked in favour of grander spectacle. The Batman takes place almost exclusively at night, over the span of about a week on the trail of a serial killer loose in Gotham City. It’s long and it’s slow and it’s deliberate.
The city itself feels like a strange hybrid of not quite New York, not quite Chicago, all gothic architecture and constant, miserable rain.
The Batsuit, Batmobile and all his detective gadgets all have a handmade, reappropriated feel that really adds to the grounded tone.
Soundtrack is great. Performances are all excellent. Cinematography is understated, but frequently impressive.
Could probably have been trimmed down a bit, since the final act feels a bit superfluous after a big string of satisfying resolutions, and there’s an unnecessary cameo right by the end that feels like a studio note.
Still, this feels like an absolute step in the right direction. Doesn’t quite have the big punch of the Nolan films, but I actually kind of prefer this style. Very, very promising for sequels.
Classic Wes Anderson, in the sense that it’s unlike his other films while still being quintessentiallya Wes Anderson film.
More a series of loosely connected stories hung on a bookend framing device than a singular narrative. Each section is portrayed with Anderson’s distinctive flair, immaculate set design, quirky characters and deadpan delivery.
The cast is perhaps the most stacked of any of his (which is really saying something), and each of the vignettes comes packaged in black and white with only occasional shots of vibrant colour for impact. Likely as close as he’ll come to doing a full feature in black and white, his shot composition is nonetheless striking even drained of colour.
The set design and staging execution is fantastic, especially in the repeated motif of tracking shots that move from scene to scene, with actors holding pose as though in a still life painting.
Offbeat and weird. If you like Wes Anderson, you won’t be disappointed. If you can’t stand his style or the way he shapes performances, this isn’t likely to change your mind.
A few moments of weird and convenient movie logic keep it back from greatness, but it’s otherwise very well executed and the creature design is awesome.
Well worth a watch if monster movies are your jam.
Great cast, and a director I usually love, but this didn’t do anything for me.
Seems like it’s aiming to be a throwback to old-school classic zombie tropes, but doesn’t bring anything new or interesting to the table. Doesn’t even strike a compelling tone, or wring distinct performances out of anyone.
Plot just sort of meanders from one scene to the next, there’s no apparent stakes, and everything is playing so straight and flat that it almost seems like it’s supposed to be satire?
Impossible to tell what it’s trying to say, in that case.
Starts out interestingly enough, but the instant it becomes so meta that you expect it to elevate into something wild, it just… stops evolving.
The rest of the (very extensive) runtime is filled with dull exposition and mediocre action. Familiar characters return, with some of them swapped out for younger counterparts (with wobbly in-world explanations) since it seems unlikely Hugo Weaving or Lawrence Fishburne were going to get back into fighting shape for another go around the block.
Action films have come a long way since the original Matrix, and it’s disappointing that there’s nothing here that comes even remotely close. It’s unremarkably shot, and there’s not a single iconic setpiece, which is odd in a franchise that exploded to fame on the back of its iconic setpieces. We all thought, apparently foolishly, that the return of The Matrix meant some grand, mind-bending new evolution of action films again. Hell, Keanu’s still on his A-game with the John Wick franchise.
Instead, Resurrections chooses to go down this strangely self-aware and self-referential path, but then doesn’t really capitalise on the ideas at all. One of the earliest bits of dialogue in the film literally goes: Our parent company, Warner Media, was going to make another Matrix anyway, at least this way we get to do it on our terms.
Kind seems like “on our terms” meant taking everyone’s interest in the franchise out the back and shooting it.
NERVE.SQUID.PILOT 