The Matrix: Resurrections
I rewatched The Matrix: Resurrections because I was incredibly disappointed on the first viewing. I spent a week thinking about the film, wondering if I was mistaken and being harsh with my opinion. I read interviews with everyone involved, watched interviews with Lana Wachowski and I was moved by her statements concerning why she made this film. I felt like a bad person for not getting what was put into the world and I sat down again to educate myself.
The second viewing was worse than the first. This is a dreadful, wrongheaded movie. For the life of me, despite reading and seeing what I saw, I cannot understand why it was made. When I try and think about the people who claim to like this film all I can come up with is that they must not have seen the original when it came out, particularly in the theater. I don’t write that to be patronizing. It’s hard to reconcile this film with the original and the experience of seeing it for the first time.
The Matrix is an incredible fusion of ideas and influences that requires no familiarity with either on the part of the viewer to enjoy the film. At the same time those who were “in the know” had the double pleasure of recognizing works they loved and concepts they appreciated forged into something new and unexpected. Seeing the Matrix for the first time was, for lack of a better term, an unique experience.
The Matrix: Resurrections tries to protect itself from criticism but offering all of the theories and reasons as to why the film exists. Only this proactive approach within the movie fails. It isn’t “Meta” and it isn’t clever. It is an excuse for returning to the well and attempting to restart a franchise that is creatively spent.
I don’t like to be mean about works of art but this film (much like the two sequels) undermine everything that was great about the original. The best example of the wrongheadedness of this film was recasting the role of Morpheus for no reason. Lawrence Fishburne was not asked to be in the film. They just…recast the role and addressed it in the film as though his new computer program form made it a fun choice to look different. Every original idea was retread, reprocessed and done worse than before. I cannot think of a better film to point to as an example to quit while you are ahead.
Peacemaker – Season 1
I watched the first season of Peacemaker in January and utterly hated it. It felt flat and empty and pointless. The idea was to generate sympathy and compassion for a character who is little more than a caricature. I respect filmmakers like James Gunn because they seem to have no fear tackling new topics and exploring new themes in their work. In this instance I think this is because he doesn’t know any better and doesn’t realize there are things he’s not good at.
I rewatched this show a few months later and my harsh opinion softened. Do I like it now? No. But I feel like I better understand that the viewer is meant to be laughing at the characters. That despite the attempts to humanize Peacemaker, the viewer, ultimately, is meant to look down on him. The trouble with the works of James Gunn is that they are so brazenly simple that trying to reflect on intention and nuance feels like a waste of time.
Rewatching Reminiscence improved the film for me. The first time I floundered and wondered if I had missed something. On the second viewing I confirmed that I did not miss anything, yet I enjoyed it more. I don’t love the film. I feel that Hugh Jackman is, once again, poorly cast. For some reason people want him to play these complicated, difficult characters who are violent and unpleasant and it doesn’t really work. He’s a great actor but when he plays these kinds of roles I can see the performance and it is unfortunate. He is a charming, charismatic actor who conveys goodness and decency and I would love to see him in roles that allow him to be these things.
Thandie Newton, as usual, is the best thing in this film and I wish it had been written for her to be the lead. I think it would have made a better movie. She can be whatever she wants and it works.
Sicario: Day of The Soldado
I think I’ve written about the first film before. If I haven’t, I didn’t love it. I liked it but the way people went on about it (and I get it – Denis Villeneuve, Taylor Sheridan and Roger Deakins) made me question myself. So I’ve seen it four or five times and I think it’s a fine film, just nothing special. It has some great parts and a third act that goes bananas. The entire appeal of Sicario was that they made a grounded film about real issues. Reality-based action sequences and a grounded approach of catching the higher ups in the cartels was the basis of the film. To then conclude it with a one man army storming a compound and killing everyone? Bizarre.
The sequel did not get much love. I saw it, liked it and forgot about it. I came across it in March and wanted something to watch and it felt right. What I can say after watching it again is that I think it’s a better film than the first Sicario.
First and foremost the main frustration I feel when I watch Sicario is that the main character is clueless for most of the movie. She’s used and in the dark and the big conclusion is that despite being an accomplished FBI agent she’s not capable or prepared to operate in “the real” world. She’s forced at gunpoint to sign and official lie because her only real purpose in the movie was to use her status as an FBI agent to allow a CIA covert action to take place. Does this sound rewarding to you? Do you get a sense of emotional payoff? Or do you, too, feel like a dupe for sitting through this film and not being part of the real plot?
The sequel is focused on the actual main characters of the first film, played by Josh Brolin and Benico Del Toro. They are at it again and operating in Mexico. I like the story of this film better. I like that both Brolin and Del Toro have a chance to behave like actual people (and not some weird Cormac McCarthy version of a tough southern guy) and have genuine, tender moments. I feel that both actors are able to actually act in this film and do interesting things with their characters. I also feel that the film concludes in an interesting and satisfactory manner. All in all I think it is a better movie and hope people circle back to it and give it another chance.
I had a spell this year where I was rewatching Michael Mann films. I didn’t start with Ali, I watched The Insider first and I was startled at how poorly it holds up. I don’t think I had seen either of these films since they were released. Since their releases I’ve seen countless films and shows and learned how to write films and make them. I say this because I believe part of my frustration with both of these films stems from knowing more about story structure now and how to actually put a film together.
Whereas The Insider spends too much time with Al Pacino’s character and constantly jumps forward in time with Russel Crowe’s – effectively removing the suspense and sense of how completely this man destroyed his life becoming a whistle blower (the entire point of the movie by the way) – Ali simply fast forwards through numerous important moments of Muhammad Ali’s life.
I found this viewing fascinating given the impact both of these movies had on me when I initially watched them. The portrait painted of Muhammad Ali in this film is that of a hothead who is unfaithful to every woman in his life and wasn’t that impressive of a boxer (because you only seem him boxing when he’s older). The last part is particularly interesting given that when he was younger he was obviously an amazing boxer.
If all you knew of Muhammad Ali’s life was this film and you focused, naturally, on the third act when you recalled it, you would be forgiven for thinking he was not very special. More attention is paid to his interest in women or his strained relationship with the Nation of Islam than it is to his boxing – which would be forgivable if you felt you learned something of value from the time spent on these other things.
Instead we have a third act taking place largely in Africa, showing the build up and long wait for the Rumble in the Jungle. Where Ali comes to distrust and dislike Don King and ultimately devise a strategy of beating George Forman. I haven’t rewatched the actual fight but the one in the film is painful. You see a smaller, slower man essentially hiding from the fight while the better boxer tries to go through with the match. It’s an unpleasant ending, what might be called a very un-Hollywood ending, where by doing the sneaky, dubious thing Muhammad Ali wins the fight. It left me with a bad taste in my mouth and questioning my reverence for the films of Michael Mann.
Kong: Skull Island
I rewatched this in June. I was the correct thing to do. I love this movie. I love that this movie knows exactly what it is and does it’s job. I think it is perfect.
I rewatched this in July and enjoyed it, again. Hellboy is the dumbest title in the history of dumb titles. For anything. Every time I see it I can’t help but feel it is a test. Or that the writer lost a bet. It’s stupid and lazy and feels like a five year old came up with it thinking they landed on the coolest thing ever. It’s not and I wish I could make it go away.
This film was savaged and should not have been. I think I prefer this to both of Guillermo Del Toro’s films. The plot is straightforward, you understand HB and his motivations immediately, and the mystical/magical elements are interesting and creepy.
The special effects (benefitting from coming later than the earlier films) are quite good. The fight sequence with the giants is weird and unusual and different from anything I have seen before. I also think making the main character looks as he does – actually ugly and weird, was a great choice. Comments were made about how he resembled a melted candle – this was intentional. He’s supposed to dislike his appearance (and it should unsettle others) and what his “true nature” is. I like the performance that David Harbour gives in this film (in every film) and I hope people give this another chance.
The Ghost in The Shell (2017)
I watched this again and had the same response as before – I like this movie. I’ve seen a few versions of the original, I’ve watched several of the television shows. I’ve seen sequels to the original anime. In some way or another I have enjoyed them all as this is an interesting concept and to varying degrees these films and shows have been well-made. All of those previous projects have been animated. This is the first live-action film I have seen of Ghost in The Shell and I think they did an excellent job bringing it to life.
I don’t want to dwell, this is a rewatch for Pete’s sake. They made changes to the original story. The cast a caucasian actress to play the lead. They created a role for Juliet Binoche. Yep. They explained and justified these changes and, I think, made it all work. I think the filmmakers were less interested in “whitewashing” the lead role and were more interested in casting one of the biggest and best known actors in the role. If the goal is to get as many people as possible to see your film – casting Scarlet Johansson in your movie is a good start.
For some reason Guy Ritchie re-entered my life this spring. I was, often, at a loss as to what I should watch this year. In that moment I think I had just been dealt the one-two punch of Killing Eve season four and Shining Girls. I was lost. I needed something that would bring me back from the dangerous precipice of believing that no one was making anything good. For some reason Snatch presented itself as the best method to do this and I watched.
Unlike Rock ‘n Rolla I find snatch to be a pretty smooth film-watching experience. There are no rough spots or sections that you fast forward through. Is it perfect? No. It is funny? Very. I think this is the last film Guy Ritchie made where he wasn’t copying from himself and you can feel the difference. The ideas were new to him. He’s playful in this film. Brad Pitt clearly is having the best time playing this role and Jason Statham isn’t trying to compete with him.
The underwater boxing moment holds up nicely as does the shocking shootout after the fight. I enjoyed watching this film enough to watch three other Guy Ritchie movies I hadn’t seen. If that isn’t an ringing endorsement I don’t know what is.
What rewatching The Batman brought home to me is the following:
- The score is excellent but strangely forgettable. I kept thinking that parts of it were similar to Down on The Upside (Soundgarden) when watching the movie. Afterwards I tried to find the particular track to share with a friend and I could never find it. So many of the songs are very similar to one another but it isn’t a theme being manipulated (I don’t think). It’s an odd thing to discover. What I am clumsily trying to say is that the music is married to the music and separating it does harm to the music.
- The plot is pretty so-so. The first time through, not knowing what is coming and then getting the capture of the Riddler long before the ending feels interesting and fresh. Rewatching the film all I could see were the influences of Seven everywhere. Which is not to say that I think Seven was the first film to do this. Only it was the first time I had seen it. So much with Catwoman and her story doesn’t hold up well on rewatching the film. She’s really upset only she’s falling in love with Batman, only she’s got big issues with her father only…I feel the will of the screenwriters more than the drive of the characters in most of this film. They want Catwoman to have feelings for Batman but what I see on screen doesn’t justify anything.
- I didn’t realize they were utilizing “The Volume” when they made the movie. Once I saw a number of behind the scenes videos it became apparent. It’s not that knowing this takes away from the film but there is something about actual locations that gives sequences that extra “oomph” that you want in a movie like this. You think about the opening of “The Dark Knight Returns” with the airplane and then people talking about the virtues of the “The Volume” and you find yourself quietly sidling toward Mr. Nolan (detonate that bomb, baby!).
- Everything with the Batmobile is gold. They did such a nice job with the vehicle and that car chase. I love it.
- The notion that Bruce Wayne fits his Batsuit into a backpack that he can quickly change into is absurd. It would not fit and he would not be able to quickly put it on. Plus he’s wearing the eye make-up beforehand and that’s weird. Also, what happens if he loses the backpack or has an accident? Then the suit is just out there. This is no good.
Look my life, in many ways, is just Dune and Tenet now. I have accepted this and so should you. I seem to watch it every four months or so. Each time I notice something new, am comforted by how masterfully it was made and adapts the source material, and how much I yearn for more time with Javier Bardem.
Just last week I learned that the “bagpipes” at the beginning of the Atreide’s landing on Arrakis are not, in fact, bagpipes. Hans Zimmer you madman, you.
Hello. Again. This movie is so absurdly good and so universally unappreciated. I will never understand it. It’s layered. It’s nuanced. It is so intricate and complex then when I start thinking about how you would conceive of the story and figure out how to execute one of these scenes I go cross-eyed. This is such a movie.
When I rewatched The Northman I tried to pay more attention to the beginning. My initial impression was largely focused on the revenge aspect of the film. Not so much the romance and mystical aspects. Rewatching I was surprised how little there is to the childhood section. Each scene is so important and memorable. You get a strong sense of the world and this boy’s place in it, it is very well done.
I also noticed how much I liked the action sequences of the film. Despite the comments made by Corridor Digital in the episode when they looked at the special effects of The Northman, I like how the action was handled. It didn’t feel overly stylized but felt correct for the time period. The most memorable moment being catching the spear mid-air and throwing it back which I believe is based on a painting but I cannot remember where I read that so I’m not finding a link to offer. I know that the director tried to do things practically whenever possible and I think the details of the costumes and the sets gives this film an authenticity even if you aren’t actively noticing them.
I enjoyed this film as much if not more the second and third times I watched it. It holds up remarkably well.