deadwitchflying Reviews

The Matrix Resurrections (I) (2021)

By all means a modern sequel

[21 August 2022]

Context: I watched the Matrix Resurrections having heard nothing about it prior to my viewing, except for a couple of teasers from late 2021, before the film's release. I didn't know anything about the general consensus on the film (except from my best friend telling me people find it disappointing) nor did I look up any reviews.

I prepared for it by rewatching the original trilogy to make sure the events were fresh in my mind. It's worth noting that I love The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions, having seen them in my childhood originally and being extremely influenced by them.

The Review proper:

Resurrections, like most if not all sequels/remakes/reboots to popular intellectual properties released in the mid-to-late 2010's and the 2020's is a power struggle between nostalgia-fueled distractions and genuine film-making and story telling.

The movie does suffer from what I will call "post-Star-Wars-sequels / post-Jurassic-World / post-(insert IP sequel / reboot / remake from the mid-10's onward)", in that it cannot simply exist as a new installment in a popular series, it also has to make constant callbacks to it. In many ways this is the weakest element of Resurrections and leads, in my opinion, to most of the core problems of the film.

Firstly, in terms of editing, I don't really understand the necessity of intersplicing shots from the old trilogy into this new film as a mechanism for callback. All it does it take the fiction of the film and break it to remind you even more of things you have already seen in the past, which is also most likely the reason you're sitting down to watch Resurrections. And while Reloaded and Revolutions used footage of the first Matrix film as a callback mechanism, it wasn't nearly as egregious.

Secondly, something we've seen in previous attempts at revitalising old IPs in recent memory is calling back to scenes or dialog from previous installments. Again, a very distracting element of modern sequels and remakes, because it breaks the fiction of the film.

Finally, holding old characters on a pedestal, in-universe that is, as legends if not quasi-gods, bigger-than-life creatures of mythology (in the same way that Han Solo, Luke and Leia were in the Star Wars sequels for example) makes the new characters weaker in comparison, not just in terms of their abilities as competent individuals, but also as realised and developed people inhabiting the same universe as the returning characters. The Matrix Resurrections doesn't really care much about its new characters and funnels a lot of their personality into not so much appreciation of, or admiration for Trinity, Neo, Morpheus, etc but moreso fanaticism and worship as some form of new-age religion developing as a direct result of the events of Revolutions and the freeing of Zion. In wanting to embody what they are / represent, they forget to be themselves, which is definitely a shame.

On the other hand, I thought the visual aspects of the film were good, but I think in the 2020s, it's the bare minimum to have your film being shot well. I watched some of the interviews with Lana and the crew on the blu-ray and they talked about why they decided to lean more heavily on natural lighting, and I think it does give a certain charm to the film. Moreover, the action set pieces feel more genuine and less calculated than those of Reloaded and Revolutions, which were overly choreographed.

The story itself has some elements that I think are in the spirit of the Matrix as a franchise. The beginning of the film being set in the simulation in which Neo is a world-renown game designer who made the Matrix trilogy having to make a new installment is fun meta-commentary. The fact that he is struggling with metal health issues (and especially hallucinations) and having a hard time telling reality and fiction apart is basically the entire point of the Matrix. The fact that Neo is being alienated by the main villain in a reality that makes him miserable, notably through blue pills that he prescribes him, also fits the bill.

Where I think the story falls short is in its lack of character development despite being 150 minutes long, almost feeling like it should have been two films, the same way Reloaded and Revolutions tell a story across the span of nearly four and a half hours. There's also a sense of scale that has been lost from Revolutions to Resurrections following the fall of Zion and the rise of the new city of Io, in that Io feels empty as we do not see that many humans or machines living in there, as opposed to Zion where humans held parties, fought the war, died en masse, etc. And thus, while the jump from the limited world of the first film contrasts heavily with our first trip to Zion in Reloaded, that jump doesn't translate from Zion to Io. The world of Resurrections begs to be expanded and the open-ended nature of its ending (Trinity and Neo, now free again from the Matrix, goes off to change the world) participates in the issue that the film feels like a set-up for something more, despite the fact that no other movie is planned at the time of writing this review.

The result is a film that does have its moments, and isn't necessarily bad through and through, but is weaker than its predecessors in a noticeable way. I'm giving it a light 7 because I still had a good time watching it despite its flaws. And to be honest, I don't think scores mean much of anything to begin with, especially as I'm reviewing the much-anticipated sequel for an IP that I've had a lot of feelings about for at least 17 years and that is held in such high regard as a pop-culture icon.

Troll 2 (1990)

One of my favourite movies of all time

[31 October 2020]

I think like most of us here, I've discovered Troll 2 thanks to its notoriety online as one of the worst films of all time. Now, I'm not gonna go ahead and claim that this movie is well-made by any conventional standards of cinema, but I do think that Troll 2 is truly a one-of-a-kind film, and that its qualities lie in at a different level of analysis, one that doesn't really care about conventional standards of artistic quality.

The premise itself is fairly simple: on a family vacation to a small village named Nilbog, our heroes are going to be ambushed by vegetarian monsters known as goblins. The movie follows Joshua, a young child, as he figures out how to fight back against them, with the help of his ghostly grandpa.

This idea for the film came from the fact that, back in the late 80's, the director and his wife (who co-wrote the film together) had increasingly more friends that turned vegetarian and thus they came up with this concept for a vegetarian vampire, presumably out of spite.

Now, what's very interesting with that concept is that not only is it charged politically (more on that later) but it also gave them the opportunity to draw inspiration from body horror. At several points of the film, we see characters transformed into plants in a moderately gruesome fashion only to be eaten by goblins, and that in and of itself might get a rise out of you.

The movie's overall production quality is fairly low. Most of the effects, props and costumes are fairly cheap looking, which makes them stick out. For instance, several scenes of the film display a sort of green paste that's relatively gross to look at, as well as what is supposed to be green blood, I assume. I find it fairly cool that the colour of nature is portrayed in such a gross, unappealing manner throughout the film, even if that's just a result of budgetary constraints.

This also reflects in the food,... which I guess is the main cultural conflict of the film. Goblins have this food that is mostly normal looking except for the fact that it systematically contains that green paste. The characters in the film don't have a problem with the way it looks (aside from Joshua), but as the audience we understand that their food is supposed to be gross and basically inedible. By the same token, the goblins look particularly cheap but they are absolute nightmare fuel in their own right.

The acting is absolutely horrendous, but it's bad in a way that is fun and unique. Every single actor plays terribly in their own little style, which gives their characters unique personalities, as a result. Now, maybe if the script wasn't so weird they might have given "better" performances but honestly, I don't think so. Also worth noting: I believe the actors were instructed to not stray away from the material, even if their dialogue was clunky or nonsensical...

Which brings me to the script! What's very particular about the script is that it is written by Italians, trying to emulate a language they are not very familiar with, I.E. English, but also trying to paint their own picture of the late-80's American traditional family. And why I think this is valuable is because getting a look into the way Americans are portrayed by people other than themselves, in a genuine manner, is fairly interesting, given the hegemony of their culture.

What I believe the film is trying to say is that the American way of life is incompatible with vegetarianism, but not just that. The goblins in the film represent a way of life that is diametrically opposed to that of the traditional nuclear family. Goblins don't even seem to have families, or if they do they don't seem to value that unit very much. They also engage in sex outside of marriage and they presumably have different religious traditions, which puts them in a position of outsider to the hegemonic culture to begin with.

On a side note: when it comes to films like these, that have acquired a reputation for being terrible/a laughing stock, we should analyse what they have to say and try to understand what their authors wanted us to take out of them. Because no art to devoid of meaning, and in fact all art carries with it a set of values for us to talk about.

In conclusion, I think the reason I love this movie from the bottom of my heart is not because it's "so bad it's good", as some may say, but rather because it's a genuine piece of art, and that none other makes me feel this way. I think it has a charm that far surpasses its ineptitude, in the conventional sense of the term. The film isn't devoid of sense and its plot is no accident: our two writers experienced something in the world and wanted to talk about it in the form of a horror film. There is, I believe, genuine artistic intent in this movie, and this is what makes me come back to it every so often.

I cannot look at a movie I enjoy this much and say "oh yeah this film is bad". That doesn't make sense. it's otherworldly qualities are strength rather than weaknesses, and to say this movie is "so bad it's good" undercuts the very reason why I like it so much in the first place. It's bizarre, it's fun, and it's entertaining. It is a truly joyful experience. 10/10

The Unbelievers (2013)

A quite interesting movie

[4 July 2015]

This movie has been criticized for its lack of entertainment value and also because it's not convincing. I disagree with the entertainment part, because it entertained me. The only thing I found annoying was the sound-mixing.

It's a short period of the lives of Dawkins and Krauss, and was not meant to make people stop believing in god. It is more about what these two guys are trying to do, how they do it and why they do it. It's basically promotion for their movement, and I see no problem with that. I was a bit disappointed though, for various personal reasons and expectations, but the overall thing is kinda good at what it does. If you don't know about Dawkins and Krauss, this is the movie for you, because it is what the movie's about. Don't expect religious vs atheist debates in this documentary, like I did, because these are not included. They are all over the internet by the plenty though, so if you want you can check them out.

It's an interesting documentary to understand what atheism is about, what it is willing to do and who are the big names of the movement. Not necessary, but you can still watch it and learn something out of it. I know I did and I'm a atheist.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Not a fan, still let down

[17 June 2015]

To begin with, I haven't read the books. I'm not a big reader, though I might enjoy literature when I take the time to consider it.

I pushed "play" with high expectations, really high ones, because everybody since 2001 was continuously saying that this is the best trilogy of all time. I was like "Meh, it's not for me". After almost 15 years, I gave it a try. Disappointed ? Yes. The characters have nothing to offer, and some of them are the plain annoying, for example Pippin and Merry. The acting is horrible because every single line is said with the same lifeless tone and the actors have dull facial expressions. The elvish dialogue makes me want to cry blood because it seems to be here just to show off with nothing to offer. The humor doesn't make me laugh at all and some scenes are just clichéd version of themselves, especially the death of Boromir.

Not to mention, it's boring. Even the battle sequences are full of s**t. The slow motion moments only add to the frustration caused by the slowness of this flick. They felt the need to include a romantic subplot, which is horrible and so clichéd I could have come up with something better as a 2-year-old.

And don't get me started with the visuals. I'm not a fan of CGI in live action flicks. It gets dated in 6 months and looks horrible, and so does every green screen in this movie. The green screens are so obvious they ruin everything.

I'm bashing this movie, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have qualities. Some of the visuals are OK, and the music is good. But it's not enough. I don't see any interesting plot, everything is so slow you barely see crap. Besides the character development is really lame, and the villain is one-dimensional. Frodo is a horrible hero, he does everything to be useless and harmless, and so it doesn't make sense that he carries the ring.

My best friend told me that LOTR was so beautiful, you had to be captivated. Hell no, I want a story, not impressive visuals. Night of the Living Dead was made for 60k and it is more far more entertaining that this, hell it had better character development.

Overall, the movie is not self sufficient. It is made so that you have to watch the entire trilogy, not that you'd want to after this catastrophe. I don't mind a 1h30 long crappy movie, but this is 3h-long, it makes it even worst.

If you are a fan of Tolkien's work, you will like it. As a movie-goer, I can't stand it for so many reasons, it's incredible.

5/10 because it's boring, dull, and the hero sucks.

Grown Ups (I) (2010)

Go home, Adam, you're drunk

[27 February 2015]

Let me warn you before my review really begins : this is not a movie. This is painful and horrible experience that claims to be a movie.

I don't mind the cast, they are Sandler's friend, and even though I don't like Chris Rock I don't care because I know the casting choices were relatively obvious. Kevin James is kinda cool and he delivers the only good joke in the movie (when they are at the restaurant).

Now, why is this flick so bad ? Well, my friend, it's simple : nothing happens in this movie. It's just a $80M vacation movie. They go here, do that and that's it. Well, not exactly, they try to make you laugh with miserable jokes but fail 99% of the time so it doesn't really matter. For a film that calls itself a comedy, I've never felt that insulted.

Really, it's an insult to good cinema. 80M for this ? Seriously, the toilet paper was golden sheets or what ? Or maybe the actors were payed a fortune, I don't know. Either way, no one should spend 80M in such a thing. It's revolting.

And I think I've said enough. There's not even a real plot, why should I mention it ?

3/10 and I'm being really kind on this one.

American Sniper (2014)

Not bad... But definitely not good either

[27 February 2015]

I came to the movie theater, expecting 'murican propaganda... This movie actually surprised me. It surprises me even more because it's Clint Eastwood behind the camera.

Now, let me tell you why it's definitely not American army propaganda, and at the same time, we will encounter some of the weakness of the flick.

1) The idiotic motivation of the main character to go to Iraq. He decides to go serve his country for obscure, unclear reasons : "Oh my gawd, terrorists are frightening, I best go to Iraq to kill them all". It makes little to no sense and to me, it's satirical. Otherwise, it's stupid.

2) 1000 days spent looking for a few guys. American troops at their weakest. No efficiency, the main character even get grounded at one point of the movie. They don't know what they do and where the villains are. They waste time and money. And it makes to movie kind of repetitive : looking for the bad guys, go home, looking for the bad guys, go home etc.

3) Does he even have a family ? We know little about his wife and kids, nothing about his parents. By the way, the wife and kids are here because they have to, because C. Kyle had a wife and children, not because they were necessary to the story. He focuses on war, war, war. Even home, all he cares about is war.

4) All war and no play makes Chris a mad boy. It becomes more and more crazy towards the end of the movie. He doesn't talk to his wife, he almost killed a dog, his blood pressure is insane. This is for me, the best part of the movie. It shows what effects war has on a human being, and what he becomes because of that. It also shows what extremes they have to face. For example (it's in the trailer), when his hesitate to shoot on a boy trying to lift and fire a RPG launcher at his colleagues. The character is also hunted by all the people he could not save, rather than those he killed. For me, the psychological aspect of Chris Kyle is the best part of the movie. Too bad it's so little of it.

What more can I say ? Flaws : Iraqi people are not even considered human beings, rather targets or enemies. Plus, Chris says himself that the US are the good guy and the Iraqi are the bad guys. Thus, disregarding the fact that the US army is a total intruder to the Iraqi soil.

The whole flash back at the beginning, when he hunts with his dad : pointless. Adds nothing to the story, means nothing. - The action's repetitive and therefore tasteless.

The whole "Chris Kyle is a legend" thing is too much

Now, I'll finish this review with what I liked : Bradley Cooper is one hell of an actor. He is the best C. Kyle I could ever think of.

As I already said before, the whole psychological aspect of C. Kyle is really interesting, and I wanted more of that in the movie.

Not a bad flick, overall. But if you want to see a great, satirical war movie, watch Full Metal Jacket.

Divergent (2014)

4/10. Four, like the character

[27 February 2015]

I have incredibly low expectations when it comes to young adult movies, and yet, I'm still disappointed. Many of you claimed that it is really similar to the hunger games. Well... yes and no. Divergent is stupider.

First of all : the credits are still rolling and I don't know why there was a war and why dividing people into five district... I mean factions is gonna help maintaining peace. This is BS. No explanations, nothing. And we meet our lead character Kat... I mean Tris (notice how Katniss and Tris sound similar) played by Shailene Woodley. And for me, this is the first mistake they made in this movie. Woodley... I just don't like her. Her voice, her face, everything.

But the crap really hits the fan when you learn that not only is she divergent but that this is something rare... How ? I mean, have you ever been 16 and not knowing what you wanted to be when you grow up or is everybody in this lousy version of Chicago conditioned or something ? I call BS on this part. Being divergent is not something rare especially at the age the characters are. It's not, and this is why the movie makes little sense.

2nd problem : the factions. How does it maintain peace to restraint people to one single way of living for the rest of their lives ? And what about the faction-less (or homeless. It's literally the same thing) people ? They don't care about their fate ? They don't want abundant food and a home ? I mean, they can build a giant wall but can't feed the poor ? How perfect is that ?

3rd problem : choosing a faction is nonsense. They don't even get to "try" them. If factions really have to fit who they are, they should be able to walk in their shoes for at least 48h each. Instead, they are giving a false choice : either you stay home safe or you explore the unknown with the risk of being kicked out. Concretely : it would not maintain peace IRL.

Final major problem : The chemistry between Tris and Four is fake. In one of the early scenes of the movie, Four gives her the most beautiful, powerful middle finger ever : "What makes you think you can talk to me ?" And she doesn't seem to remember it afterwards, and worst of all, they don't share that much special moments in the movie. Their love seems forced by the circumstances.

So, the plot is nonsense, the character development is poor, and so is the acting. I haven't talked about the action sequences at all, but trust me, it's not worth mentioning. Finally, the climax is... unexpectedly bad and makes little sense. I'm trying to keep the review spoiler-free so go watch it for yourself and you'll know what I'm talking about.

The Purge (I) (2013)

Don't look at it in the eyes, stay away from it

[27 February 2015]

This is a disaster. This movie is one of the worst movie I've ever seen in my entire life. First thing you should notice is the incredibly unrealistic explanations on how the purge magically decreased the crime rate in the US, apparently including crimes that are not even mentioned in the film or not even the focus of the purge ! What about drug dealing, stealing, harassment and all that stuff ? That doesn't count ? And of course psychopaths would also enjoy their 12-hour killing spree and not kill anybody the rest of the year ! WTF is wrong with this movie ?

It's a 85-min mess with an incoherent plot, incoherent reactions, annoying and cliché characters who are just stereotypes of stereotypes: The geeky-boy with a strange behavior (Charlie, I hate you. Truly yours), the older sister who has a problem with her dad, the boyfriend the dad does not approve (of course, a absolute classic).

/!\ The next part might include spoilers. Well it might not, it will. If you wish to watch this movie skip to the next warning notice /!\

Everything in this movie is a joke ! Even the main villain of the film is utter nonsense. He and his "friends" spend half the movie just focusing on the hobo (they want him really bad) instead of just letting it go and try to kill someone else ! Worst of all is the climax. The hobo responsible for all the trouble they went through actually save them from getting killed by their jealous neighbors ! How about you go f--k yourself, movie ? If he is the problem AND the solution, then this is completely useless ! Overall, this is a bad movie. The characters are annoying and terrible, the story is nonsense, the villains are unrealistic and absolutely not scary.

The only """good""" thing about this movie is that it's only 85 minutes long, not 120 like some other really bad movies. But, really, it's painful to watch. When watching this piece of filth, I got really mad when the wife changed her damn mind for not apparent reason ! I mean, come on ! Even the hobo agrees to die, why would you protect him if the guy himself wants to be a "hero" ?

/!\ Sure 100% there is no more spoilers /!\

Don't watch it. Please don't. I'm begging you.