Change Your Image
lthewitt
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Rotting in the Sun (2023)
Unwatchable
One of the worst 'films' ever made. It features unsimulated footage of the director beating his dog, along with actual sex and drug taking. Nothing else happens except abusive narcissists repeating the same bland dialogue and watching dull TikToks. That's the entire thing. Mubi has lost a lot of credibility by releasing this mess.
Every critical review of this film has been dismissed by its strange devotees as homophobia. This is a nonsensical response, since the criticism has to do with lack of quality, not the sexuality of the characters. Not only this, but the film's depiction of gay life is itself incredibly homophobic and derogatory.
Glass Onion (2022)
Why end it like that?
This would have been one of the best films of the year, were in not for the ending. Everything we thought about the characters and who we were meant to be rooting for was completely ruined by a long and pointless scene which completely destroyed any sympathy we may have had. The smug looks and direction are clearly meant to indicate this is a heroic achievement, but I would be astonished if anyone could sit through that appalling bad climax without thinking that the 'heroine' was anything other than an evil narcissist almost as bad as the villain she's supposedly trying to take down. Such a let down. Did nobody at Netflix read the script and suggest improvements before they handed over several hundred million?
Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)
Avatartanic
Most filmgoers have spent the past decade in agreement that 'Avatar' was okay, but rather clichéd and definitely not deserving of the biggest box office gross of all time. At the time, the special effects were astonishing, zipwiring over the uncanny valley in a way which had never been done before.
Of course, now we see that standard of CGI everywhere from video games to the cat in 'Toy Story 4'. So we have to focus on the aspects of filmmaking other than sheer spectacle.
It would be very easy to dismiss a film simple because it's popular and expensive, but reviewing this film on its own merits I thought the opening was strong and had the potential to be a very gripping film. It started to falter when the villain from the first film was brought back to life in a new body and immediately started attacking people in his confusion. He is then sat down and forced to watch a video of his human self explaining (and barely understanding) that his memories have been saved so that if anything happens they can be uploaded into a new avatar.
The sensible thing to do would have been to save his memory after he's already been told this, so that when the avatar/clone wakes up it would already know what's happened and wouldn't go on a confused rampage.
The special effects are very impressive, but the film very slowly becomes a remake of the first film, only set on the coast rather than in the forest. Does anyone care? Is there anything to be gained that wouldn't be from watching the first film again?
The twist this time is that Jake has four children and the baddie is planning to cause Jake suffering while also killing off the entire Na'vi race. So when the villain captures three
Picture a scenario: you're the most evil man in the world and you're planning to commit genocide, specifically hoping to cause suffering to one man. Then three of his kids come to you, your henchmen take them hostage and you try to use them to lead you to their dad. Instead, they resist you and repeatedly call you a butthole.
What do you do? You'd kill or torture one of them so the others would be terrified and do your bidding, right? Well, in this film nobody ever seemed to want to hurt the kids and even the bullets almost always avoid them.
So you quickly realise that nobody significant is going to get hurt in the first two hours of the film, by which point you are bored senseless and thinking this will end up being a 4/10. But to make it even worse, the third act is a shameless merger of 'Avatar' and 'Titanic' - if they each became the highest grossing film of all time, why not remake them together? Who cares about integrity, originality or storytelling, right?
Not only that, but some scenes are direct remakes of 'The Abyss'. When you've made some big movies, do you feel obliged to just redo the same things? If was incredibly boring to watch.
The thing to ask yourself with a sci-fi movie set on another planet (or moon) is: if this were set on earth would I care, or is there something integral to the story which means it must be set on another world? The answer in this case is neither. It would have been very easy to swap those birds for horses and all the other animals for terrestrial animals. What you'd have is an incredibly boring movie. For some people, the visuals might be enough to distract from the lack of substance. I wasn't convinced.
The plot holes were glaring. Early on, we discover that everyone knows they can connect these jellyfish to their backs and breathe underwater. So all the characters who drowned could have easily been protected. And it's not as though they have any objection, since the entire world is tailored to fit humanoids. Even the animals they ride have evolved to have a handle on the back and a port to connect their tails.
And what are we to make of the character who is supposed to be heroic for spearing fish, then ten minutes later he's judging other people for harpooning a whale's fin. These people 'are connected with nature' only so far as they can see human-like life in the animals they're using. We're told it's wrong to kill a whale because they're very intelligent and can appreciate music - but any other animal is fine to be used. This leads to one random scene where the baddies extract the elixir of life from a dead whale, which is never mentioned again. If there's a material which can stop human aging, would that not be the villains' motivation for everything? Forget about revenge on Jake, you could live forever.
The plot makes no sense. The characters are either one-dimentional or have no dimensions or thought whatsoever. The dialogue sounds like it was written by an algorithm, the plot is self-plagiarised, the acting is... well, let's just say it's a good job Zoe Saldana is there, because nobody else was even trying. The main character doesn't even react to a major tragedy in his life.
And the absolute lowest point has to be when Spider swims past dozens of dying morally grey characters in order to save a genocidal dictator simply because... no, there's no explanation given. Even the character doesn't give any indication of why he did so. The only reason anybody could possibly give for saving the villain is to make three more shameless sequels.
A 1/10 film could potentially become a 3/10 based on its visual prowess - were it not for the case that this is such a shameless cash-grab with not a shred of originality. Still, the nostalgia value will appeal to some and six months from now this film will have taken $1.7bn and be the 7th highest grossing film of all time. Shameless.
The Last Blockbuster (2020)
10-minute interest piece stretched into a dull movie
Even at 86 minutes, this film is far too long. The manager says she conducted 500 interviews, most of which are sections on news channels. Anyone thinking about watching this film would be better off watching one of those clips instead, as it would feature all the same information.
The film keeps trying to find something deeper than Blockbuster, but is continually unable to. All anybody can say is, 'People get nostalgic,' but that's not exactly groundbreaking. The fact that they have to bulk up the documentary with random customers explaining in detail the process of renting a film (in one case, a man genuinely says, 'I left the house, closed the door behind me, took my key out, locked the door, started walking, crossed over the railway line that was on the way, walked up to the store...') and footage from TV interviews where the subjects repeat the same information is indicative that there is no potential for a film here.
The film would be better if the filmmakers asked some interesting or insightful questions, which they never do. Only once do they ask a minor subject for where to go with the shop in general - if they had asked the shop employees, it would have been more interesting. The fact that nobody suggests opening a café or themed restaurant within the store is frankly astounding, as it would be the logical way to ensure the place stays afloat.
Repeated footage of people entering the store and looking around as though there's something spiritual going on is embarrassingly bad, as is minor filmmakers who only appeared as an excuse to talk about their own work and their famous friends.
Strangely, all the interview subjects talk about how people need video stores so there is a physical place where people can bond over films, but at no point does anybody mention DVD stores, film clubs or even cinemas, all of which provide that service far more tangibly and affordably.
Everybody Wants Some!! (2016)
Boring and annoying in equal measure
A film which is uncritically nostalgic about a group of violent, bigoted fratmen who have no knowledge or interests beyond objectifying women, smoking weed and being homophobic.
Like most Linklater films, there's absolutely no plot. But unlike the excellent 'Before' trilogy, there's no charm or thought behind any of it. It's merely a pointless, rambling street of entitlement and machismo.
Brad's Status (2017)
Seriously bad
It would be one thing if this film were simply boring. I mean, it is very boring. It's 102 minutes without any plot or experimentation or anything interesting happening at all. But the real problem is that the entire film consists of whiny, entitled moaning from an entitled narcissist.
I'd be tempted to say that could work if the point is that we're meant to see this character as an example of what not to be. But the film isn't critical of Brad in any way. It just allows him to go along with his rant as if it's the most important thing in the world.
His only aspiration is to be richer or more powerful than the people he went to uni with. He seems incapable of making friends and uses everyone he knows as a stepping stone or prop to further his own life. When they don't give him money and invite him to their weddings he gets annoyed, but he doesn't ever bring anything to the table to make anyone want to spend time with him.
He complains that his friends children are spoilt because they use the word 'cisgender' (are trans people spoilt...?) and moans that it's difficult to get into Harvard if you're white, rich and from the New York suburbs. Apparently the screenwriter needs to do some research about privilege and the demographics of the Ivy League.
Any time someone begins to say something interesting, the sound fades out and we hear more of Brad's annoying narration. Everything is billed as profound, but it's really just an old man fantasising about dating loads of teenage girls. Incredibly creepy.
Not sure if it's meant to be endearing or not, but it's very difficult to care about characters who have no self-awareness or kindness. When the son turns up to Harvard on the wrong day to interview, the family easily find many connections they can use to get an easy way into Harvard, while moaning that life is so tough as a well-connected, rich family. Although they moan about money, they happily spend $1600 on upgrading a single flight...
Overall it's painful to watch. Not really any plot, likeable characters or interesting ideas. Don't watch.
Only You (2018)
I wanted to like it...
What was the point of this? It starts off with two incredibly boring characters. I adore Josh O'Connor as an actor, but Jake is a complete personality sponge. The only trait he has is that he's studying a PhD (something they seem to only remember once every six months) and sometimes listens to music. Elena's personality is looking moody and lying about her age. Why anybody would trust somebody who lies about their age multiple times when they've just met is beyond me.
The two spend some time moaning at each other and occassionally having sex. There doesn't seem to be any spark, but they're both bored and then meet each other's friends. Jake sees Elena holding a baby and immediately decides to have a baby. They've been together a few months at this point, and never discuss it, except for Jake once making a vague remark. His next action is to force Elena to have unprotected sex, when she's firm in wanting to use a condom. Didn't think it needed stating, but forcing someone to do something they're not comfortable with in sex, particularly when it could result in something lifechanging is not okay!
They quickly discover they're not getting pregnant naturally, and go on a waiting list for IVF. This is all very understandable, and the fact that this causes additional stress and arguments is very believeable. This is a great middle of the film, although isn't exactly entertaining viewing. However, when it becomes apparent that Elena has an issue with her eggs and can't conceive that way, everyone in the film, including the entire medical community, seems to forget that surrogacy and adoption exist. There is a direct arrow repeatedly stated that Elena not being fertile means the couple can never have kids. The fact that they celebrate their one-year anniversary around this point draws attention to how absurd and unbelievable the timeline is.
It's completely convincing that fertility issues would cause arguments. But Elena repeatedly calls herself useless and worthless because she can't reproduce. She says she's pointless as a woman because of her ovaries. She tells her partner to leave her and find someone who can have his kids. Nobody seems to dispute what he's saying. If this film weren't written and directed by a woman, I'd assume some misogynistic meninst from Twitter had scrawled it down to make women feel bad about their bodies.
All the characters stating that they want perfection and that maybe their parents were or weren't perfect seems drawn from a book of clichés. Any screenwriter knows that it's important to show not tell, but this film seems to fail at telling the things which need to be told and all the things that could be subtle are bluntly hammered across.
Eventually the two characters are fighting and screaming and ask what they're doing together, finally getting to a point which has bothered me all the way along: what did they see in each other? It's never clear, even from the beginning. Is it just that they're both attractive and under 40?
Elena screams at Jake to leave and makes clear she doesn't like being with him, repeatedly forcing him to get out the flat. She rapidly becomes an immensely hateable figure for her irrational and selfish behaviour. Ten minutes later, however, she's sobbing at a café and demanding to know why Jake left. He insists he'll never come back. Then his dad tells him that he sometimes argued with her mum (I know he's meant to be a naïve 26-year-old, but surely everyone above the age of ten knows that sometimes parents fight?) and the two reconcile.
I really wanted to like this, but ultimately it just felt like a waste of everyone's time. Have no idea what all the critical praise and awards were about. It's not the first film to deal with this subject matter, nor is it the best.
South Park: Safe Space (2015)
The exact conservatism it used to parody
I used to like 'South Park'. Even when it was cheesy or stupid, it mocked politicians and celebrities if they did something wrong. That's what satire is about.
This series (and this episode in particular) attacks the underprivileged. While also taking a slight dig at a few minor celebrities, the 'joke' is that women and the overweight shouldn't be allowed any sense of safety in their personal lives.
The writers have deteriorated in quality from biting satirists to now just being boring trolls hoping to bag the Teabagger brigade, whilst simultaneously claiming that the 'politically correct' world is out to get them.
There was some humour and satire at the beginning and the end, but it's quickly lost. By claiming that anyone who is against bullying is against reality, the show appears to recruit the worst fan-boys, and doubtless any complaints or criticism will be dismissed as 'political correctness gone mad' or 'just a prank, bro'.
Either way, what was once funny has turned into a conservative whine fest.
Catastrophe: Episode #2.1 (2015)
Terrible cliché and writing
Introducing a pet dog and then killing it off is not only disgusting but an example of terrible writing.
The fact that none of the characters appears to care that their pet has been run over makes them utterly detestable people and really changes them.
I enjoyed the first series, and worried that the new dog would just be a cheap way to sadden the episode. I've seen way too many films and TV shows already which try to formulaically introduce some emotion into a comedy by killing a beloved animal. Writers should note that this never works and almost invariably exposes you as a bad writer who thinks clichés are the way to appeal to your viewers.
Disappointing to say the least.