Tumgik
twosentencereviews · 19 hours
Text
Boy Kills World: 8/10
It's extremely comic book-meets-fighting game, with hyper-stylized bloody violence, expedited worldbuilding, black comedy, and H.Jon Benjamin giving sardonic "thought bubbles" to Bill Skarsgard. I felt like the semi-predictable plot twist undermined the theming, or at least gave it a less compelling theme.
0 notes
twosentencereviews · 3 days
Text
Abigail: 7/10
The Act I crime thriller is good, and the Act III boss fight is good, but the Act II transition is uneven. The weakest link is honestly the title villain, who I did not find convincing; but Dan Stevens easily makes up the difference.
0 notes
twosentencereviews · 9 days
Text
Space Jam (1996): 6/10
It's a nostalgia bomb, to be sure, a time capsule of 90s aesthetic and uncanny-valley early CGI. But as it turns out, pro basketball players are not pro actors, and MJ's wooden performance kills any comedic momentum that the Looney Tunes might have generated.
0 notes
twosentencereviews · 9 days
Text
Joker 2 will (probably) also be bad
I've gone on record saying Joker (2019) was a badly-conceived film, with ideas that are, at best, inconsistent and muddled.
And now they're making another one. With Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn. Maybe it will be better this time?
...no, probably not. Let me break it down.
So, the entire design philosophy of Joker (2019) from writer/director Todd Phillips was, quote, "we're gonna sneak in a real movie in the guise of a comic book movie". That is, Phillips wanted to make Taxi Driver...but he's only a talented enough filmmaker to make The Hangover at best, and The Hangover Part III at worst, and so Warner Bros only trusted him with an IP that was guaranteed to succeed regardless of quality.
This sucks on two levels. If we judge Joker as a "real film"...it fails utterly, because it's using the visual language of the 1970s to whine about 21st century woes, and even then doesn't have anything to say. The "failed standup act goes viral" plot beat doesn't fit with the media landscape of the 1970s, while the clown rioters echo the "eat the rich, defund the police" sentiment that was brewing in 2019 and would explode with George Floyd's murder in 2020. These things are included because Phillips is the kind of jerk who complains about "woke culture" on Twitter. The only reason Phillips sets the film in the 1970s...is because he's cheating off Scorsese's homework.
But if we judge Joker as a comic book movie, it also sucks, because it completely fails to live up to what makes The Joker so fascinating. See, The Joker is a Batman villain; a standout antagonist against the rogues gallery. You cannot understand The Joker except as a literary foil, as a dark reflection of the Dark Knight. Batman is a solemn, incorruptible force for justice. The Joker is a manic, incorruptible force of destruction. While many of Batman's villains are sympathetic (e.g. Mr Freeze), and others are garden-variety thugs with powers (e.g. Clayface), The Joker is pure. He cannot be reasoned with or negotiated with, he has no agenda beyond causing mayhem, and he has no better nature to appeal to. That charisma, that certainty of purpose, is what makes the Joker such a fun villain. Phillips throws all of that in the garbage--Arthur Fleck is weak-willed, cowardly, and just needs a friend.
And now, in Folie a deux...he's getting one, in the form of Gaga's Harley Quinn.
Now, Harley Quinn is different from the Joker. Harley was introduced in Batman: the Animated Series, voiced by Arleen Sorkin, as a counterpart to Mark Hamill's Joker. Her origin story is that she was Dr. Harlene Quinzel, a psychiatrist at Arkham Asylum, who tried to fix The Joker...only to be pulled in by his madness, taking a new name, costume, and falling head-over-heels for "Mista J", her "puddin'".
This is interesting because while The Joker only really makes sense as a Batman antagonist, Harley only really makes sense in the context of the Joker. Harley's story is one of domestic abuse; she is The Joker's greatest victim, and yet his staunchest ally. She sometimes realizes this and tries to get away, but can't escape his manipulative gravity. This obsessive love, however, is not returned; The Joker's soulmate is Batman, the yin to his yang, his equal and opposite. Nowhere is this more clear than in the iconic Mad Love, where Harley almost kills Batman as a gift to her puddin', only for The Joker to furiously lash out in a "no one kills Batman but me" kind of way.
So while the Joker is fun because he's so unsympathetic, Harley is fun because she is sympathetic. The Joker is fully evil, but Harley is only evil because of her exposure to The Joker; without him in the picture, she's just a manic antihero.
And that's exactly what's happened to her character over time; fan and authorial desire to see Harley achieve independence and escape the cycle of abuse led directly to her more modern portrayals, such as Margot Robbie in Suicide Squad (2016), Birds of Prey, and The Suicide Squad (2021). But even then, she was introduced in Suicide Squad against Jared Leto's Joker, and the start of Birds of Prey is her mourning her breakup with him. Her animated series starts the same way, seeking autonomy and an independent self-identity.
Folie a deux...isn't going to be doing that. It can't. It doesn't work with Arthur Fleck. The whole point of Joker (2019) is that Arthur Fleck is a loser, he's a failed nobody, he is the dregs of society that everyone ignores. His sexual frustration and loneliness form the basis of a major (and idiotic) plot beat with Zazie Beetz. He is a million miles from the "charismaniac" of Hamill or Ledger--there is zero possibility that he could "infect" a brilliant psychiatrist.
To his credit, Phillips realizes this, and is taking a different angle. From the trailer, it looks like Gaga's Harley is going to be a fellow Arkham resident, and she's going to be the one who initiates flirtation with Arthur, in a sort of "love letter to a serial killer" kind of admiration. The trailer leans heavily on the refrain of "what the world needs now is love, sweet love", and overall seems to be framing itself as an honest-to-god romance. Instead of the Joker/Harley relationship being abuser/victim, it looks instead to be toxic enabling, where Harley encourages Arthur to embrace his worst, most destructive instincts.
And...that's probably going to be framed as a good thing. See, if Folie a deux is going to be a romance, then plot constraints demand that there needs to be an obstacle dividing the lovers and preventing their happy union. What obstacle could exist between Arthur and Harley? Why, the entire legal system, of course--we see in the teaser multiple shots of them going up courthouse steps. It's likely that the pair fall in love in Arkham, escape ("let's get out of here", Harley says), are recaptured, and then have to defend themselves in court. This might have a "happy ending" where they win and leave together, affirming that enabling a violent criminal is a good thing. Or it might have a "sad ending" where the court outcome separates them, affirming Arthur's nihilism and anger at a system he perceives as unjust only when it inconveniences him. Either way, Harley is going to be framed as good for Arthur, making him better while making him worse.
Could this be done well? Maybe. It's certainly possible. Canon is already so broken that it's no longer a limitation. A talented director might realize the moral complexity in the relationship between two violent, mentally unstable murderers. One could frame the entire thing as a tragedy, where "boy gets girl back again" is shown to be disastrous (as in The Graduate). Or, it could even be something of an inversion of the more canonical Joker/Harley romance; instead of Harley realizing that she's better off without Mista J, it might be Arthur realizing he is better off without Harley.
But it almost certainly won't be any of that. Because Phillips thinks that Arthur Fleck is relatable. He thinks he's a martyr, a victim of targeted injustice, a doomed hero refusing to bow to societal norms. But he isn't. Arthur Fleck is an entitled white boy who simultaneously sees his suffering as a systemic failing, while also refusing to see how the system harms others, and refusing to see how his own choices make things worse for everyone. Arthur Fleck is an embodiment of denied privilege, where cishet white men expect to be lavished with unearned success, and are butthurt when they don't get it.
And above all, the thing that media has always told men is that a manic pixie dream girl is going to find you and fall madly in love with you despite your obvious failings. That is the heterosexual male romantic fantasy; love without effort, acceptance without labor, companionship without obligation. Todd Phillips might play this straight. Or he might set this up for Arthur, only to deny it as an act of authorial cruelty. But the first film demonstrates that he lacks the self-awareness necessary to actually deconstruct it, to criticize the expectation itself.
So no. I don't think Folie a deux will be better than its prequel. Because for Todd Phillips to make a better movie, he'd have to be a better person. And he's not.
12 notes · View notes
twosentencereviews · 17 days
Text
Monkey Man: 10/10
The action is visceral, well-choreographed and executed, with some of the best knife fights I've ever seen on film. But what truly elevates the film is how director/writer/lead Dev Patel uses visual motif and metaphor to establish growth from "I want revenge" to "we want justice".
7 notes · View notes
twosentencereviews · 1 month
Text
One Cut of the Dead: 9/10
(Original title Kameru o Tomeru na!, lit. "Don't stop the camera!")
It's a low-budget movie, about making a low-budget movie, about making a low-budget movie, about zombies. They took the already challenging one-shot format, shot a fake "making of" at the same time...and then, the end credits have a real" "making of the making of", just to flex.
1 note · View note
twosentencereviews · 1 month
Text
Late Night with the Devil: 9/10
It's fantastically well-executed horror, with a slow build, great gore effects, and a showstopper of a finale. Sure, the found-footage angle is a tired trope, but it allows for an efficient setup and they drop it once no longer needed.
8 notes · View notes
twosentencereviews · 1 month
Text
Twilight: Breaking Dawn: Part Two: 5/10
It's terminally boring, just a bunch of irrelevant vampires getting introduced to stage a conflict based on a fabricated misunderstanding that gets resolved as a deus ex machina. That is, except for the fight scene in the third act, which is the high point of the entire franchise.
0 notes
twosentencereviews · 1 month
Text
Wicked Little Letters: 7/10
It is a bizarre artistic choice to highlight 1920s England's religious grandstanding and rampant sexism...while also completely covering up the racism. That anachronism aside, it's a fun little romp with good acting and a few laugh-out-loud bits of comedy.
4 notes · View notes
twosentencereviews · 2 months
Text
Dune: Part Two: 9/10
As an adaptation, it is an utter masterpiece, capturing the grandeur and complexity of the original, without every feeling bloated, and keeping everything tied to the emotional core of Paul's journey. My only complaint is that it ends the same way the book does, which I have always found dissatisfying.
8 notes · View notes
twosentencereviews · 2 months
Text
Orion and the Dark: 6/10
The "magic friend" coming-of-age genre (Totoro, Iron Giant, A Monster Calls) almost always has some level of dual reality to it, where the events can be interpreted either literally or as a metaphor. You'd think this would mesh well with Kaufman's story-about-itself structure, and it has moments, but the whole is less than the sum of its parts.
3 notes · View notes
twosentencereviews · 3 months
Text
Hazbin Hotel: Season One: 9/10
The Broadway musical numbers and cast give the show real charm and heart, in a found-family/band-of-misfits kind of way. Ironically, the "adult" content (the sex, drugs, and violence) ends up feeling juvenile when contrasted with the more mature themes of hope, personal growth, and forgiveness.
7 notes · View notes
twosentencereviews · 3 months
Text
Anatomy of a Fall: 8/10
(Original title: Anatomie d'une chute)
It takes the central question of a criminal trial, "guilty or not guilty", and winds a drama around it. It's maddening, yet intoxicating, to see a woman go through emotional hell, without truly knowing what is in her heart.
5 notes · View notes
twosentencereviews · 4 months
Text
The Conversation: 10/10
The brilliance of this film is how it slowly but thoroughly trains the audience in the art in the art of (thoroughly justified) paranoia. The main character never explains himself, and barely even speaks, and yet we see and feel his entire emotional arc.
0 notes
twosentencereviews · 4 months
Text
Poor Things: 9/10
It's an astonishing film, visually stunning and supremely well-acted. I feel like the surreal worldbuilding does slightly undercut the core themes, but overall this is a very fun movie that is well worth the 2+ hour runtime.
1 note · View note
twosentencereviews · 4 months
Text
Sweeney Todd: 7/10
(2007, dir. Burton)
Everyone in the cast (Depp, Carter, Rickman, Cohen) is an extremely talented actor...and a mediocre singer. Combined with necessary adaptational changes from stage to screen, and Burton's distinctive stylistic tendencies, musical aficionados may be left unimpressed but everyone else should have a mordibly good time.
0 notes
twosentencereviews · 5 months
Text
Godzilla Minus One: 9/10
This is Godzilla/Gojira as he should be; a giant, in-your-face, laser-breathing metaphor. The balance is tilted more to period drama than action for this installment, but both halves are supremely well-executed.
3 notes · View notes