I just watched this film recently and i hoping this is the right sub for this but i love it i love how the protagonist is gentle and realistic and for me atleast quite a bit relatable (i tend to daydream a lot than take action) . The landscapes were so beautiful and it just gave a whole whimsical feel to the movie. I also loved how they ended the movie on a hopeful tone and i loved the the growth of walter and the acting was just phenomenal the characters weren’t overly loud but kept me hooked the whole time. The movie definitely deserves more adoration than it has

Barbie - Review Thread

• Rotten Tomatoes: 89% (110 Reviews)
• Metacritic: 81 (47 Reviews)

Reviews:

Deadline:

In essence, Barbie is a film that challenges the viewer to reconsider their understanding of societal norms and expectations. While it may be centered on a plastic entity, it is very much a film about the human condition — our strengths and our flaws. It is a reminder that even within the most superficial elements of our culture, there can exist an unexpected depth and an invitation to discourse. Gerwig’s directing is an earnest exploration of identity, societal structures and the courage to embrace change — proving once again that stories can come from the most unusual places.

Hollywood Reporter:

However smartly done Gerwig’s Barbie is, an ominousness haunts the entire exercise. The director has successfully etched her signature into and drawn deeper themes out of a rigid framework, but the sacrifices to the story are clear. The muddied politics and flat emotional landing of Barbie are signs that the picture ultimately serves a brand.

Variety:

It’s kind of perfect that “Barbie” is opening opposite Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer,” since Gerwig’s girl-power blockbuster offers a neon-pink form of inception all its own, planting positive examples of female potential for future generations. Meanwhile, by showing a sense of humor about the brand’s past stumbles, it gives us permission to challenge what Barbie represents — not at all what you’d expect from a feature-length toy commercial.

Empire (4/5):

Greta Gerwig delivers a new kind of ambitious and giddily entertaining blockbuster that boasts two definitive performances from actors already in their stride. Life after Barbie will simply never be the same again.

The Guardian (3/5):

Greta Gerwig’s bubblegum-fun-cum-feminist-thesis indulges Ken but pulls its punches as it trips between satire and advert

Entertainment Weekly (A-):

The fear is that Hollywood will learn the wrong message from Barbie, rushing to green light films about every toy gathering dust on a kid's playroom floor. (What's next, The Funko Pop Movie? Furby: Fully Loaded? We already have a Bobbleheads movie, so maybe we're already there.) But it's Gerwig's care and attention to detail that gives Barbie an actual point of view*,* elevating it beyond every other cynical, IP-driven cash grab. Turns out that life in plastic really can be fantastic.

Collider (A-):

Gerwig has created a film that takes Barbie, praises its contribution as an idea to our world, but also criticizes its faults, while also making a film that celebrates being a woman and all the difficulties and beauty that includes. This also manages to be a film that feels decidedly in line with Gerwig’s previous films as she continues her streak as one of the most exciting filmmakers working today. Barbie could’ve just been a commercial, but Gerwig makes this life of plastic into something truly fantastic.

IGN (9/10):

Greta Gerwig’s Barbie is a masterful exploration of femininity and the pressures of perfection. This hyper-femme roller-coaster ride boasts meticulous production design, immaculate casting, and a deep-seated reverence for Barbie herself. Margot Robbie sparkles at the center of the film, alongside Ryan Gosling’s airheaded Ken and America Ferrera’s well-meaning Gloria. Ultimately, Barbie is a new, bold, and very pink entry into the cinematic coming-of-age canon. Absolutely wear your pinkest outfit to see this movie, but make sure you bring tissues along too.

Rolling Stone (4/5):

This is a saga of self-realization, filtered through both the spirit of free play and the sense that it’s not all fun and games in the real world — a doll’s story that continually drifts into the territory of A Doll’s House.

Insider (B+):

"Barbie" offers up a lot of big ideas to ponder, but it frustratingly fails to take a stance on any potential solutions.

Consequence (9/10):

Barbie is a magic trick, a stellar example of a filmmaker taking a well-established bit of corporate IP and using it to deliver a message loudly and clearly. That Greta Gerwig’s third solo film as director also manages to be a giddy, silly, and hilarious time is essential to its power, and the challenge of this review is thus trying to explore how the magic trick works, while still preserving the flat-out awe I have at what it achieves.

The Independent (5/5):

Barbie is joyous from minute to minute to minute. But it’s where the film ends up that really cements the near-miraculousness of Gerwig’s achievement. Very late in the movie, a conversation is had that neatly sums up one of the great illusions of capitalism – that creations exist independently from those that created them. It’s why films and television shows get turned into “content”, and why writers and actors end up exploited and demeaned. Barbie, in its own sly, silly way, gets to the very heart of why these current strikes are so necessary.

The Wrap:

Still, it’s not the aim of “Barbie” to darken your mood as a fun and abundantly populist studio picture, in which Gerwig presents the audience with various Kentastic musical tracks and in one stupendous instance that shouldn’t be spoiled, a friendly middle-finger to Matchbox Twenty through Gosling’s fearless performance. Thanks to Gerwig’s imagination, this “Barbie” is far from plastic. It’s fantastic.

The New York Post (1/4):

The packaging of “Barbie” is a lot more fun than the tedious toy inside the box.

----

Synopsis:

After being expelled from the utopian Barbie Land for being less-than-perfect dolls, Barbie and Ken) go on a journey of self-discovery together to the real world.

Directed by Greta Gerwig

Written by Greta Gerwig & Noah Baumbach

Cast:

• Margot Robbie as Barbie
• Ryan Gosling as Ken
• America Ferrera as Gloria
• Rhea Perlman as Ruth Handler
• Will Ferrell as the CEO of Mattel
• Different variations of Barbie played by:
  • Kate McKinnon as Weird Barbie
  • Issa Rae as President Barbie
  • Hari Nef as Dr. Barbie
  • Alexandra Shipp as Writer Barbie
  • Emma Mackey as Physicist Barbie
  • Sharon Rooney as Lawyer Barbie
  • Dua Lipa as the Mermaid Barbies
  • Nicola Coughlan as Diplomat Barbie
  • Ana Cruz Kayne as Judge Barbie
  • Ritu Arya as Journalist Barbie
• Different variations of Ken played by:
  • Kingsley Ben-Adir as Ken #1
  • Simu Liu as Ken #2
  • Scott Evans as Ken #3
  • Ncuti Gatwa as Ken #4
  • John Cena as Kenmaid
• Helen Mirren as the narrator
• Emerald Fennell as Midge
• Michael Cera as Allan
• Ariana Greenblatt as Sasha, Gloria's daughter
• Jamie Demetriou as a Mattel employee
• Connor Swindells as Aaron Dinkins, a Mattel intern
• Ann Roth as an old woman who meets Barbie

I absolutely love Minority Report. It's not only my favorite Spielberg movie of the 2000s but also one of my favorites of his entire career. I'm not going to act like the movie is "underrated" by any means but considering Spielberg's other movies are so iconic and well-known (Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T., etc.) perhaps this movie gets lost in the shuffle a little bit.

There's so much for me to gush about this movie. The action (like the jetpack chase), the future technology, the concept of pre-crime and the ethical implications it has, the cast, the tense moments (like the spider robots scene). It's like everything I want in a good dystopian sci-fi thriller.

Plus, considering this movie turned 20 years old last month, the CGI holds up very well. Whether it be a ship taking off or the jetpacks or the spider robots. I dare say the CGI is better than some modern blockbusters. I think it's because the effects aren't the focus but rather the icing on the cake. They enhance an already great movie.

Thor: Love and Thunder

• Rotten Tomatoes - 72% (116 Reviews)
• Metacritic - 63% (37 Reviews)

Reviews (will update as more come in)

Ben Travis, Empire (4/5)

In so many ways, for mostly better and occasionally worse (a jaunt to Omnipotent City drags a touch), Thor: Love And Thunder is a deeply weird, deeply wonderful triumph. It’s a movie that dares to be seriously uncool, and somehow ends up all the cooler for it — sidesplittingly funny, surprisingly sentimental, and so tonally daring that it’s a miracle it doesn’t collapse. The Gorr-centric cold-open is as dark as the MCU gets, but this is also a Thor romcom with a loved-up ABBA montage, and a Viking longboat pulled through space by a pair of gigantic screaming goats (who nearly run away with the film). It’s a movie about midlife crisis that feels like you’re watching one in action, with its gourmet gods, glorious intergalactic biker-chicken battle, and Guns N’ Roses galore (the ‘November Rain’ solo is deployed perfectly). And come the closing reel, when the true meaning of its title is unveiled, it leaves our hero in a place so sweet and surprising, you’ll be truly moved. It’s a Taika Waititi movie, then — we could watch his cinematic guitar solos all day. ---

David Ehrlich, IndieWire (B-)

This is the kind of movie in which the kingly verve of Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie is almost enough to offset how little her character gets to do. It’s the kind of movie that ends on such an emotionally satisfying note that I was willing to forgive — and all too able to forget — the awkward path it traveled to get there, or how clumsily it gathered its cast together for the grand finale. If “Love and Thunder” is more of the same, it’s also never less than that. The MCU may still be looking for new purpose by the time this movie ends, but the mega-franchise can take solace in the sense that Thor has found some for himself.

Therese Lacson, Collider (A)

So, while there might be complaints about the film's pacing or weaker first half, Thor: Love and Thunder recaptured exactly what charmed me about these MCU movies. I never once rolled my eyes at a joke that was clearly dropped in, so it could be a zinger and make it to the trailer. It successfully silenced a rather jaded MCU fan by offering a story that had it all without having to sacrifice its soul to the MCU machine that is eager to churn out stories for future phases.

Tom Jorgensen, IGN (7/10)

Thor: Love and Thunder is held back by a cookie-cutter plot and a mishandling of supporting characters, but succeeds as the MCU's first romantic comedy thanks to Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman's chemistry.

Leah Greenblatt, Entertainment Weekly (B)

Even in Valhalla or Paradise City, though, there is still love and loss; Thor dutifully delivers both, and catharsis in a climax that inevitably doubles as a setup for the next installment. More and more, this cinematic universe feels simultaneously too big to fail and too wide to support the weight of its own endless machinations. None of it necessarily makes any more sense in Waititi's hands, but at least somebody's having fun.

David Rooney, Hollywood Reporter

Sure, fans will be delighted to see Chris Pratt and the Guardians of the Galaxy crew turn up in an early battle, plus there are some mildly moving interludes between Hemsworth and Portman as Jane’s health becomes more compromised with each swing of the hammer. And one of the obligatory end-credits sequences will tantalize followers of Ted Lasso. But right down to a sentimental ending that seems designed around “Sweet Child O’ Mine,” the movie feels weightless, flippant, instantly forgettable, sparking neither love nor thunder.

Josh Spiegel, Slash Film (5/10)

The best thing that can be said about "Thor: Love and Thunder" is that as rough as the experience is, it's nowhere near as bad as "Thor: The Dark World." And Christian Bale is going for it as Gorr. (The same can also be said for his "3:10 to Yuma" co-star Russell Crowe, who makes an extended cameo appearance as the legendary god Zeus here, turning the Olympian god into a fey and selfish ninny. If any part of the movie is truly hilarious, it's the scene with Zeus, and it's because of Crowe.) But maybe "Thor: Ragnarok" was, at least for the world of Marvel, too good to be topped. Or maybe you can only get so lucky so many times. As hard as the cast and Taika Waititi try, though, it just doesn't work. "Thor: Ragnarok" felt effortless. "Thor: Love and Thunder" is working very hard, and not getting a lot to show for it.

Owen Gleiberman, Variety

In the end, however, it’s the mix of tones — the cheeky and the deadly, the flip and the romantic — that elevates “Thor: Love and Thunder” by keeping it not just brashly unpredictable but emotionally alive. In Kenneth Branagh’s “Thor,” Natalie Portman held her own as Thor’s earthly love interest, but here, pulling up on equal footing with him, Portman gives a performance of cut-glass wit and layered yearning. Jane might want Thor back, but she’s furious at how he let his attention drift away from her (though having a smirking megalomaniac half-brother with borderline personality disorder will do that to you). She’s also reveling in her power, even as she wages battle against a hidden malady it can’t save her from. (The hammer won’t help; using it drains her.)

Kaitlyn Booth, Bleeding Cool (7/10)

Thor: Love and Thunder tries to make the Ragnarok lightning strike twice, but the movie ends up feeling restrained due to the lack of genuinely emotional moments and some baffling creative decisions.

---

Synopsis:

Thor embarks on a journey unlike anything he's ever faced -- a quest for inner peace. However, his retirement gets interrupted by Gorr the God Butcher, a galactic killer who seeks the extinction of the gods. To combat the threat, Thor enlists the help of King Valkyrie, Korg and ex-girlfriend Jane Foster, who -- to his surprise -- inexplicably wields his magical hammer. Together, they set out on a harrowing cosmic adventure to uncover the mystery of the God Butcher's vengeance.

Director - Taika Waititi

Main Cast:

• Chris Hemsworth as Thor
• Natalie Portman as Jane Foster / Mighty Thor
• Christian Bale as Gorr the God Butcher
• Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie
• Jaimie Alexander as Sif
• Taika Waititi as Korg
• Russell Crowe as Zeus
• Chris Pratt as Starlord
• Pom Klementieff as Mantis
• Dave Bautista as Drax
• Karen Gillan as Nebula
• Vin Diesel as Groot
• Bradley Cooper as Rocket

Memento next, folks.

All I knew going in was it's Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale going to war as magicians, and it's Christopher Nolan. That's it. And my God, it was mind blowing.

Even though it's filled with Nolan's signature time jumping, you can still follow the story without questioning that, because it's so well paced and directed. The tricks, rivalry and mystery is constantly engaging.

And then Nolan pulls it off with a magic trick deluxe of an ending. The set-up and hints are there, and it ends up bigger than you think.

I don't know what else to say. My brain is soup now. Straight up soup. Just an amazing 6/6 movie.

I’ve watched it 5 times now and each time I appreciate it more and more. The first time I watched it was on an airplane with subtitles because the headphones wouldn’t work. Even in these bad conditions I was absolutely enthralled by it. Here’s what I love about it the most.

Firstly, the cinematography. I was able to follow the story well without sound the first time because the camera shots do so well telling the story. There are some amazing scenes in the movie. I especially love the overhead shots of the city and one scene in particular where K is standing on the bridge looking at the giant Joi. It conveys how he feels at that moment so well.

Secondly, the sound and music in the movie are insanely good. The synth music mixed with the super intense musical notes just add to the suspense of the movie. The music pairs exceptionally well with the grand city scape shots.

Thirdly, set design is outstanding. Especially at Wallace’s headquarters/ temple. The room design in the temples alone were outstanding. The key lighting with the sharp edges and the lapping water were so beautiful that it made me wish I lived there.

Next, the characters/ actors were perfect. Ryan Gosling was made for this role. He was stoic yet you could tell how extremely lonely he felt and how much he wanted love. His relationship with Joi was beautiful. Somehow they made it completely believable that they were in love despite neither being human and her only being a hologram. Their love seemed so deep. Joi’s vulnerable and expressive demeanor complimented Ryan Gosling’s seemingly repressed and subtle expressiveness.

Jared Leto was crazy cool as Wallace. He was cold and over the top in the best ways. The scene where he kills the replicant after examining her fertility really conveyed at how cold and merciless he was. One of his quotes that really stuck with me was “all great civilizations were built on the backs of a disposable workforce. “ This spoke to me as a vegan because I believe this is happening with mass animal agriculture for cheap calories. One other character who was only in it for a bit was Dave Bautista. He is such a great actor!

Lastly, and most importantly is the storyline. It was heartbreaking watching K live this depressing life of submission and killing his own kind followed by his rise into thinking he is a real boy followed by his understanding of oppression in society and then is righteous sacrifice. His character arc is perfect. The really interesting points of the movie are the fact that a potential for replicants to reproduce have huge but different implications for everyone in the movie. For K’s boss it means the end of civilization as they know it. For the replicants it is to prove that they are real and aren’t just slaves to be used. For Wallace it means domination of the universe with a self replicating slave force. This movie has replaced the Shining as my all time favorite movie. Thanks for reading!

Rotten Tomatoes: 80% (136 reviews) 6.7 average

Metacritic: 63/100 (41 critics)

As with other movies, the scores are set to change as time passes. Meanwhile, I'll post some short reviews on the movie. It's structured like this: quote first, source second.

A violent, wacky, drag-me-to-several-different-hells at once funhouse of a film that nudges the franchise somewhere actually new.

-David Ehlrich, Indiewire

In the hands of director Sam Raimi, Multiverse of Madness is a marvellously assured balancing act of bizarre weirdness and affecting human drama.

-Richard Trenholm, CNET

Multiverse of Madness isn’t wildly unconventional in its story choices, but the fun it has exploring the possibilities of this narrative makes it a treat.

-Liz Shannon Miller, Consequence

Though unsatisfying in some respects, the film is enough fun to make one wish for a portal to a variant universe in which Marvel movies spent more time exploiting their own strengths and less time trying to make you want more Marvel movies.

-John Defore, The Hollywood Reporter

Marvel’s most deranged and energetic movie yet, as much of a winning comeback for director Sam Raimi as it is a mega-budget exercise in universal stakes-raising.

-Dan Jolin, Empire

“Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness” is a ride, a head trip, a CGI horror jam, a what-is-reality Marvel brainteaser and, at moments, a bit of an ordeal. It’s a somewhat engaging mess, but a mess all the same.

-Owen Gleiberman, Variety

While the MCU’s interconnected nature was once one of this universe’s strengths, now, it almost suffocates what Raimi is trying to do here. As a film that highlights Raimi’s talents as both a director of distinct superhero stories, and idiosyncratic horror tales, Doctor Strange works.

-Ross Bonaime, Collider

PLOT

Dr. Stephen Strange casts a forbidden spell that opens the doorway to the multiverse, including alternate versions of himself, whose threat to humanity is too great for the combined forces of Strange, Wong, and Wanda Maximoff.

DIRECTOR

Sam Raimi

WRITERS

Michael Waldron

MUSIC

Danny Elfman

What can I say that hasn't already been said? I knew many of the scenes and moments on forehand. I mean... it's Terminator 2. It's one of the most famous and referenced movies of all time. Yet I never watched it in full. And since it was due to leave Netflix in a couple of weeks, and it was by my correct estimates the correct version (as in not the 4K DNR abortion), I figured it was time to do something about that.

Not even halfway through, and I'm blown away. ⅔ in, I'm blown a-fucking-WAY. This is just... perfection. I don't know how else to put it. It's absolute perfection. The pacing, for a movie that's 2 hours and 17 minutes, is shockingly good. The movie moves along like a breeze. It doesn't slog or slump at all, and the simple, straight to the point story is likewise. Performances and direction? Top notch. Music? Awesome.

The action scenes, not to mention the effects in them? Simply put, mind blowing. The Oscar winning effects still hold up over 30 years later. James Cameron really is the greatest pioneer.

I don't know what else to say. Terminator 2 is 2 words: Bad. ASS! (Maybe I should invest in The Abyss on 4K soon?)

Watched this last week after hearing good things and this was really, really good. Great chemistry between the cast, particularly Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams. Jesse Plemons in particular was a comedic standout. The cinematography was pretty cool, with several shots making the landscape appear to be a game board and the tracking shot during the hot potato with the egg. And it was extremely funny, especially:

• “How can that be profitable for Frito-Lay?”

• “Man, glass tables are really acting weird today.”

• Annie waving the gun around and putting it in her mouth at one point

• The whole bullet removal scene

• EDIT: The dog / blood scene

• EDIT: Knife in the bullet hole

• Not Denzel

• The Harry Potter “Bulgarian and the egg” joke (mainly because I embarrassingly thought the exact same thing before Max said it.)

• The whole credits scene revealing the intricate planning (plus, Ryan being a Harvard graduate)

• Ryan slowly sliding $17 across the table

• EDIT: “Not with that ass, you don’t.” “Oh. Well...thank you.”

• “Yes! Oh no, he died!”

And, going into the movie dark, I actually had no idea what was happening with the plot. The movie had me second-guessing myself several times, but when everything was revealed at the end, it didn’t feel contrived.

Would definitely recommend!

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire

• Rotten Tomatoes 44% (190 Reviews)

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire offers a certain amount of nostalgia-fueled fun for fans of the original, but a crowded cast and surprisingly serious tone prevent this sequel from truly sparking.

• Metacritic: 46 (42 Reviews)

Reviews

The Hollywood Reporter:

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire doesn’t mess with the well-honed formula, carefully balancing its laughs and scares in the breezy manner that makes for pleasurable, if lightweight, viewing.

Deadline

It is confusing at times, and not everything works, but Frozen Empire does a very good job of keeping the flame alive, 40 years after the fact.

Variety:

“Frozen Empire” has enough going on in it to connect, but now that Jason Reitman and company have brought this series back to life, it’s time to re-infuse it with the spirit that Kumail Nanjiani brings.

The Independent (3/5):

Frozen Empire is a notable improvement on Afterlife – funny, silly, and a little scary, with its pockets full of hand-built doodahs and the occasional excursion into the realm of pseudo-mythology and parapsychology.

Total Film (3/5):

Too many characters and callbacks plus a formulaic plot means Frozen Empire doesn’t touch the original movies, but it’s a likeable-enough brand extension.

IndieWire (C-):

This franchise might not be entirely dead just yet, but its latest resurrection doesn’t make nearly enough good arguments to keep pumping life into it.

Screen Rant (2.5/5):

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire has a lot of potential and a chilling new villain, but too many characters and a slower plot leads to dimmed thrills.

USA Today (2.5/4):

Although “Frozen Empire” improves upon the previous film and there's plenty to dig especially for young fans, it falls short of the 1984 classic's high bar.

The Guardian (2/5):

The time has come for Hollywood to allow the spurious Ghostbusters franchise to join Jurassic World and Aquaman in the bin and think of something new.

IGN (4/10):

Ghostbusters: Frozen Kingdom’s tiresome, bloated plot and expansive roster of characters will leave you out in the cold.

The Daily Beast (Skip This):

It all resembles a lot of cosplaying, although its central failing is foregrounding cacophonous mayhem and middling melodrama over the drollness that defined the first two Ghostbusters movies.

The Telegraph (1/5):

There is a noxious undead pong emanating from this latest entry in the 1980s franchise, which is now being necromantically sustained through force of sheer commercial desperation, and nothing else.

Synopsis:

In Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, the Spengler family returns to where it all started – the iconic New York City firehouse – to team up with the original Ghostbusters, who’ve developed a top-secret research lab to take busting ghosts to the next level. But when the discovery of an ancient artifact unleashes an evil force, Ghostbusters new and old must join forces to protect their home and save the world from a second Ice Age.

Cast:

• Paul Rudd as Gary Grooberson

• Carrie Coon as Callie Spengler

• Finn Wolfhard as Trevor Spengler

• Mckenna Grace as Phoebe Spengler

• Kumail Nanjiani as Nadeem Razmaadi

• Patton Oswalt as Dr. Hubert Wartzki

• Celeste O'Connor as Lucky Domingo

• Logan Kim as Podcast

• Bill Murray as Dr. Peter Venkman

• Dan Aykroyd as Dr. Raymond "Ray" Stantz

• Ernie Hudson as Dr. Winston Zeddemore

• Annie Potts as Janine Melnitz

• William Atherton as Walter Peck

• James Acaster as Lars Pinfield

• Emily Alyn Lind as Melody

Directed by: Gil Kenan

Written by: Gil Kenan and Jason Reitman

Produced by: Ivan Reitman, Jason Reitman, Jason Blumenfeld

Cinematography: Eric Steelberg

Edited by: Nathan Orloff, Shane Reid

Music by: Dario Marianelli

Running time: 115 minutes

Release date: March 22, 2024

Rotten Tomatoes: 64% (from 42 reviews) with 6.90 in average rating

Metacritic: 69/100 (22 critics)

As with other movies, the scores are set to change as time passes. Meanwhile, I'll post some short reviews on the movie. It's structured like this: quote first, source second. Beware, some contain spoilers.

That’s a lot for any audience to digest in a single sitting, and while Scott can be commended for his ambition, neither he nor Scarpa manage to build those many plot pieces into a fluid narrative.

-David Rooney, The Hollywood Reporter

Those worried about a glorification of the dictator needn't have feared. You won't be prepared for the way this film utterly humiliates the one-time Emperor of France.

-David Ehrlich, IndieWire: B–

Many directors have tried following Napoleon where the paths of glory lead, and maybe it is only defiant defeat that is really glorious. But Ridley Scott – the Wellington of cinema – has created an outrageously enjoyable cavalry charge of a movie, a full-tilt biopic of two and a half hours in which Scott doesn’t allow his troops to get bogged down mid-gallop in the muddy terrain of either fact or metaphysical significance, the tactical issues that have defeated other film-makers.

-Peter Bradshaw, The Guardian: 5/5

I cannot take credit for this observation, but a friend of mine who saw the movie said, “It’s like watching Tim Robinson play Napoleon,” and this is pretty dead on. Oh, make no mistake, this is by design. This is not my way of saying Napoleon is bad. It’s honestly now one of my favorite movies of the year – a movie that, before I saw it, looked a little too stoic and “important.” Instead, I probably laughed harder during this movie than I have during any new movie this year. And the laughs are genuine and intentional.

-Mike Ryan, Uproxx

The director’s 28th feature is a magnificent slab of dad cinema, with Phoenix a startling emperor and Vanessa Kirby brilliant as his wife.

-Robbie Collin, The Telegraph: 4/5

It’s hard to imagine an actor that could pull this off and make it so engaging, but Phoenix does, an achievement made especially impressive when you realize that this self-styled master of war sent over 3 million men to their deaths in just 22 years.

-Damon Wise, Deadline

Scott's take on Napoleon is distinctively deadpan: a funny, idiosyncratic close-up of the man, rather than a broader, all-encompassing account.

-Catherine Bray, Empire: 4/5

Ridley Scott’s big-budget war epic “Napoleon” is a series of accomplished battle sequences looking for a better movie to connect them. Once again, Scott’s craftsmanship is on full display here, but it’s in service of a deeply shallow screenplay, one that hits major events in the life of its subject with too little passion or purpose, too rarely tying one to another with any sort of momentum. A phenomenal actor is reduced to a ghostly presence in the middle of the movie, and his partner, the character who needs to give the film a beating heart, comes off as two-dimensional and hollow. Again, “Napoleon” works when things go boom in undeniably impressive ways. It’s the other stuff that loses the war.

-Brian Tallerico, RogerEbert.com: 2/4

Phoenix has always been good at depicting this kind of pathetic tyranny, deftly (and swiftly) shifting from bratty, toothless insouciance to genuine menace. The actor seems to get both the joke and the seriousness of the film, though I wish Scott were better at communicating that tone to the audience.

-Richard Lawson, Vanity Fair

Martin Scorsese is 80 and Ridley Scott is nearly 86, but neither director is showing any signs of slowing down. In recent years, in fact, their films have grown longer, more expensive and more ambitious than ever. The latest example is Napoleon, Scott's 160-minute biopic of the French military commander and ruler, which sweeps through several countries and several decades, and has several thunderous battle scenes along the way. It's an awe-inspiring achievement, although it may leave you with a greater appreciation of Scott's leadership skills than of Napoleon's.

-Nicholas Barber, BBC: 4/5

The feeling persists that something is missing here. That Scott and company are merely lightly touching on things that require deeper exploration. Which brings me back again to that 4-hour director's cut. Scott's director's cuts have become almost legendary — his alternate cut of "Kingdom of Heaven" is an almost completely different — and far superior — version than what was released in theaters. Will "Napoleon" be the same? We'll find out soon enough. For now, though, we can only watch what's being officially released, and wonder what could have been.

-Chris Evangelista, Slash Film: 6/10

Overhead shots of horizon-wide cavalry charges, cannon fire, burning ships and other wartime sights are appropriately gigantic and brutal. The Battle of Austerlitz is especially exciting. That’s all well and good, however it’s too bad Scott could not deliver a brilliant character study of one of the world’s great military leaders — and instead settled for letting a self-indulgent Phoenix fly over the cuckoo’s nest.

-Johnny Oleksinski, New York Post: 2/4

PLOT

A look at the military commander's origins and his swift, ruthless climb to emperor, viewed through the prism of his addictive and often volatile relationship with his wife and one true love, Josephine.

DIRECTOR

Ridley Scott

WRITER

David Scarpa

MUSIC

Martin Phipps

CINEMATOGRAPHY

Dariusz Wolski

EDITOR

Claire Simpson & Sam Restivo

RELEASE DATE

November 22, 2023

RUNTIME

157 minutes

STARRING

• Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon Bonaparte

• Vanessa Kirby as Empress Joséphine

• Tahar Rahim as Paul Barras

• Ben Miles as Caulaincourt

• Ludivine Sagnier as Thérésa Cabarrus (Madame Tallien)

• Matthew Needham as Lucien Bonaparte

• Youssef Kerkour as Marshal Davout

Without getting too much into the spoilers, I was thoroughly entertained by the movie. It had me guessing the mystery every single second and everytime I feel like I knew something, I was proved wrong.

A special shout out to Ana de Armas for playing Marta so well. She was flawless in the film. Truly suggested for a great murder mystery film.

I watched this movie for the first time recently, and I had heard or read very little about it outside of it being about an Air BnB type setting. It is this, but that’s an oversimplification and doesn’t do it justice.

The film opens with a woman showing up to a rental home at night in the pouring rain, and right from the get-go, the film draws you into a sense of dread with a menacing shot of an otherwise quaint, cozy home. Upon learning that there is in fact someone already there (a young man claiming to have rented the place as well), the woman looks at other options and when she learns there is none takes up the man’s offer to stay the night there instead of sleeping in her car.

I’m sure plenty could argue the opening story line is implausible itself, but all things considered the characters really do a great job portraying realistic people in a scenario where neither has done any wrong and want to try and make the best of the situation.

Now, WHY I think this movie starts off so great- both characters are portrayed in such a way that you feel as though you’re trapped in a see-saw horror-romance film. When seeing the world through the eyes of the woman, you can sense the fear that this man could legitimately be setting her up to trap her there and commit heinous acts. She doesn’t know him at all, and despite his good natured disposition, he very easily could be a serial killer for all she knows.

The man, when viewing the situation through his eyes, mostly recognizes that the woman is apprehensive about staying there with him, but he knows that HE is a good guy and isn’t going to try and murder her, so why not make the most of a weird and awkward situation and just hang out and be respectful adults?

This back & forth continues for the first half of the movie, and the tension just continues to ratchet up higher and higher, with the question of whether this guy is the bad guy or just as confused as she is about what’s going on. It’s masterful at this point up until the reveal, which to be honest I found a bit disappointing.

The second half is also very well done, but IMO loses some steam. Justin Long plays a very well crafted character- one who views himself as a victim (we find out he’s been fired for inappropriate behavior with a female coworker), but there’s reason to think he might just be someone who made a bad decision and is a *good person deep down.

JL's character is also drawn to this house like the other two, so there’s a bit of continuity in that the film’s atmosphere centers around well written characters, but the story loses me when the villain is exposed. The creeping horror remains throughout the film, but I was really hoping the two original characters kept pulling us deeper and deeper into the schizophrenic genre-melding see-saw between horror and romance (though admittedly less romantic than horrific).

JL’s character does expose a level of delusion and perhaps self-awareness not often seen in movies, but it’s not enough to rescue the second half of yr movie.

I would definitely recommend this one. What it does well it really does well, but unfortunately the plot couldn’t match it.

*it’s been more than a few weeks since I’ve watched this one, so forgive me if my memory of this character is a bit off.

Have you ever cringed when reading reviews because people gave a movie a higher/lower rating for things that don't determine the quality of a movie? Name one opinion people often have/say or that you read that absolutely annoys you.

I'll start: when people give a movie a low rating because they personally guessed the twist. Like what do you mean the movie is bad because you happened to guess the twist at the end? That doesn't even influence the quality of a movie.

The Marvels

• Rotten Tomatoes - 60% (137 Reviews)
• Metacritic - 51 (40 Reviews)

Reviews:

Deadline:

“The Marvels” stands as a testament to the possibility of character-driven stories within the grand tapestry of the MCU. DaCosta’s vision, fortified by compelling performances and thoughtful storytelling, delivers a superhero film that pulsates with life, energy, and most importantly, a sense of purpose. It’s a reminder that in the right hands, even the most expansive universes can be distilled into stories that resonate on the most human of levels.

The Hollywood Reporter (70/100):

But it’s Vellani who really splashes. Her character’s bubbly personality adds levity and humor to The Marvels, making it lighter fare than its predecessor. The actress indeed does a lot with a role that could easily be one-note, stealing nearly every scene in the process. Her Kamala is a fangirl who can hold her own; she adores Captain Marvel, but recognizes that she’s not working with the most emotionally adept adults. She’s into saying the quiet part out loud and she’s not afraid to initiate a group hug. Vellani calibrates her performance deftly, committing to comic relief without becoming over-reliant on any kind of shtick.

Variety (50/100):

The movie is short enough not to overstay its welcome, though it’s still padded with too many of those fight scenes that make you think, “If these characters have such singular and extraordinary powers, why does it always come down to two of them bashing each other?” (“My light force can beat up your bracelet!”) By the end, evil has been vanquished, however temporarily, and the enduring bond of our trio has been solidified, though the post-credits teaser sequence redirects you, as always, to the larger story of how this movie fits into the MCU. Only now, there is so much more to consume (all those series!) to know the answer to that question. I can hardly wait to start doing my homework.

IndieWire (C-)

This film actually attempts to be new and fresh — Vellani and Parris have enough charm to power 10 more films, and the “wacky” moments that pepper this one are welcome respite that show real originality from DaCosta — but it’s all ripped away for more of the same. That “same”? It’s not working anymore, and if “The Marvels” shows us anything, it’s a fleeting glimpse of what the MCU could look like, if only it was superheroic enough to try.

Bleeding Cool (8.5/10):

The Marvels is a callback to when the Marvel Cinematic Universe was putting out some pretty good movies where not every aspect of them worked, but it's still a very enjoyable experience. Like those other imperfect films, there are plenty of things to nitpick; however, by the time the credits roll, the good far outweighs the bad. There is no need for these films to become trailers for more movies down the line; they can stand more or less on their own, and we can hope that more of phase five will follow that example set by The Marvels if nothing else.

IGN (8/10):

The Marvels is a triumph. Its depth can be seen not just through its characters, but through its story as it explores war's complicated fallout; the difficulty of being a human when you are perceived as a monolith; and the hilarious and complicated virtues of family. Both funny and heartfelt, Nia DaCosta’s MCU debut will have you asking when she and her leading ladies are coming back immediately after the credits roll. It’s a pity that the villain isn’t given much to do, though.

Screenrant (90/100)

While The Marvels is ultimately Larson, Parris and Vellani's movie, and they're each strong performers in their own right, they're bolstered by a fantastic supporting cast. Jackson is especially fun as a more light-hearted Nick Fury, while Ashton is serviceable as Dar-Benn. The villain isn't one of Marvel's most well-developed characters, so Ashton doesn't have much to work with, but she's fine as an antagonist to the trio of heroes. Zenobia Shroff, Mohan Kapur and Saagar Shaikh are absolute scene-stealers as Kamala's mother Muneeba, father Yusuf and brother Aamir, while Park Seo-joon is similarly a standout as Prince Yan. All in all, the cast of The Marvels delivers excellent performances, raising the bar of the Marvel movie.

Inverse:

The Marvels, for better or worse, embodies Marvel’s current identity crisis. There’s a nugget of the truly innovative movie within it, which plays out mostly uninterrupted for the first half. But it’s when The Marvels becomes beholden to the overall MCU that its ramshackle script starts to fall apart. DaCosta and her lead actors tackle the film with a wacky spirit that we haven’t seen in years. But a handful of genuinely inspired choices and spirit can only take you so far.

SlashFilm (5/10):

Ultimately, it's a shame that every Marvel installment at this point takes on the feel of a referendum of the entire franchise — if not the superhero "genre" as a whole. Taken on its own merits, "The Marvels" is little more than another mediocre, easily-forgotten effort in a never-ending stream of products. In the context of a shared universe that's been publicly foundering in recent weeks and months, the sequel will likely be in for an undeserved amount of negative attention. That's due to no fault of its own, as it's easy to see what DaCosta and her team originally intended with this movie. It's just too bad that very little of that remains on the screen.

Consequence (B)

As successful as its biggest, wildest swings are, it’d really be nice if the plotting of The Marvels lived up to those elements. That said, those other elements are hard to oversell. It might not be the most coherent MCU entry of 2023. But it’s perhaps the most purely enjoyable.

Collider (75/100):

The Marvels is the shortest film in the MCU so far, and it’s great that DaCosta has made a movie that is short, sweet, and yet, ends up being more impactful and playful than most Marvel films. In a universe that often feels suffocated by the amount of history, dense storytelling, and character awareness needed to enjoy these films, DaCosta figures out how to handle all of that in one of the most fun Marvel films in years. It’s kind of a marvel.

Empire (4/5)

It might not have the overwhelming impact of an Endgame or even a Guardians 3, but this is the MCU back on fast, funny form.

Total Film (2/5)

Marvel’s woes won’t be solved by a disjointed mini-Avengers that doesn't make a great deal of sense. But the cats are Flerken great.

Telegraph (1/5):

The shortest of the films is also the most interminable, a knot of nightmares that groans with the series' now-trademark VFX sloppiness

New York Post (0/100):

In order: bland, annoying and misused.

Is there anything good about “The Marvels”? Yes, there is. At one hour and 45 minutes, it is the shortest MCU movie ever made.

Slant (50/100):

Only in the film’s climax, when the heroes are in the same confined area and can thus better calibrate their constant shifts in position, does the action attain a logical sense of movement and timing.

Associated Press (50/100):

This seems designed to be a minor Marvel – a fun enough, inoffensive, largely forgettable steppingstone — a get-to-know-them brick on a path only Kevin Feige has the blueprints for.

I really wasn't expecting one of the best depictions I've ever seen of social-anxiety and adult friendship-struggles in a 2009 Dude Comedy, but here we are... Just a lovely mix of heart, charm, and cringe-inducing awkwardness in the perfect amounts. After years of seeing him essentially be a leading man for Marvel, It felt kinda strange to be reminded of how good Paul Rudd could be at playing weird little guys.. he's really great in it, and Jason Segel also turns in a very good performance that feels against-type for much of what I've seen him in before.

I'm very pleased with just how earnest this film is, and how it still manages to stay hilarious and occasionally gross alongside that. One of my favorite comedies now.