Change Your Image
kadajawi
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018)
Throws logic out of the window
Let me start by saying that yes, the movie emulates the first one pretty well. It has the atmosphere, the look (sort of), the soundtrack etc. of the first one. And the actors are good, too.
The plot starts well enough, and the plan of having this top secret mission of starting a war sounds much like what the CIA would do, and how they may go about it. Wonderful.
But then it falls apart. So, the girl is brought to a military base? WHY? Couldn't she have been brought some place in Mexico, which seems more realistic considering what was going on? Why would the cartel kidnapping her bring her to the US?
But ok, I'll go along with it. When they returned her to Mexico, it was an official military mission. And corrupt cops then attacked the American soldiers. The only mistake I see, one I don't think the CIA realized, is to have her be kidnapped by the same people rescuing her. It seemed like she noticed something. But other than that? Which part of this wouldn't be easy to sell to the public, if need be? It's the bloody CIA, and they can't spin it?
Say that the girl was discovered being kidnapped by a cartel. They wanted to return her to Mexico, in a joint mission with the Mexican police (I doubt it was a top secret mission anyway since the police was involved?). There, corrupt cops attacked US soldiers. (How is that not a great reason for the US to get officially involved and bomb cartels in Mexico?!). How on earth did the CIA fail to spin this, and instead do ridiculously stupid things like trying to eliminate a very valuable asset? Sure, all grieving fathers (of which there are many) are super soldiers/spies/hitmen. Right. It's unrealistic enough that a lawyer is someone who makes Jason Bourne seem realistic. But then saying someone like that isn't valuable, and should be eliminated for a dumb reason? Absolutely something the CIA would do.
Anyway, it is a silly trope you have in many movies, and it doesn't help any of them. Kill the super soldier because he knows too much. And then he'll fight back, and kill everyone involved, whereas if they had left him alone, the secret would have stayed exactly that, and no one would have gotten hurt.
And then there are goofs like the missing headrests, which are really obvious, or them driving for 15 minutes (from night to day...) and ending up roughly 50 meters from the place they started from. REALLY?! What a coincidence...
So, yes, it is a fun movie, but please turn off your brain while watching, and please stop saying it was realistic. The CIA can't be this incompetent. Oh, and PLEASE, if they make a third movie, have someone read through the script to check if it makes any sense.
Jason Bourne (2016)
Bourne. Jason Bourne.
When it was announced that a new Bourne movie was coming, I was giddy with excitement. Trailers looked fine - and then the reviews started pouring in. Oh boy. But to be honest? For the most part Jason Bourne does work. It is NOT a terrible movie, as many here seem to claim. Let me explain.
The soundtrack is good. Not too on the nose, not too forgettable. Well shot, at wonderful locations, each being distinctively different. The casting and acting is wonderful. The script worked well given the thankless job of continuing a story that was done. It extended the Bourne lore with additional revelations and back story. It's not perfect, not as smart as previous installments, but does the job. The set pieces and big action scenes are mostly spectacular. So what went wrong?
One criticism I've seen here was that Bourne used to plan his actions much more, and now he doesn't. Sort of, but it's not bothering me too much. In the previous movies he is more of a driving force, while here he is forced into action by Parsons. And to be honest, he is still planning ahead, though more does happen by chance - to which he adapts in an instant. Classical Bourne. When he sees an opportunity he seizes it. He still connects the dots. It stays believable, I still buy that he is a super spy.
However in two and a half key areas the movie IMHO falls apart.
The appeal of Bourne has always been the writing, and the realism. For some odd reason we buy this super spy, brawly but with brains, a masterful chess player. The tech, while certainly spy stuff, stayed believable. And Jason Bourne for the most part tries to follow the trodden path. That makes it so much more jarring when (spoilers) the CIA hacker hacks into a phone to erase files on a computer that's off the internet. It's good that the computer is offline, anything else wouldn't be believable in that moment. But while after watching the movie I recalled some pretty amazing research work that might explain it if advanced several years into the future, the movie makes NO attempt at selling the concept to regular audiences. Thus I was pulled out of the movie. That truly wireless hacking may be barely acceptable for 007, but not Bourne. People have too much of a grasp of what is possible for hackers. Oh, and did I mention the malware on the thumb-drive, which, simply by being there - Bourne doesn't even run it! - manages to send the CIA the exact location, down to the house number? In less time than it takes a GPS receiver to get location data out in the open, let alone inside a building? On a computer that doesn't have GPS, let alone internet connection? Does Greengrass think we are brain-dead? And there is also a particularly violent/painful moment, that is survived by that character. How? I mean, seriously. HOW? And it wasn't even necessary. Maybe Tony Gilroy could have fixed the script, but alas he sadly wasn't involved. Just keep in mind what Gilroy was able to do in the same situation as Greengrass and Rouse, but without getting to use Matt Damon/Bourne?
And the second area? Action. I always loved how Greengrass does action. It was intense, fast, and you could still follow it. He was one of a few directors who could pull the frantic shaky cam style off. The Waterloo station scene in Ultimatum is my favorite action scene ever. But somehow Greengrass seems to have lost it in this movie. For one, there seemed to be less shaky cam, but more long lenses. The Greece riot scene is good, but it feels like with such a great backdrop it could have done more. Don't get me wrong, it was beautiful, but somehow the pacing didn't feel right, and it just feels a little lacklustre. And then the final chase sequence. I've watched a behind the scenes featurette showing how they shot it (without commentary, cuts or anything). And it was amazing. Mind blowing. Wonderful. A beautifully choreographed ballet of destruction and near misses, done in one go, not shot by shot (which makes it more impressive). And what ended up on the big screen? A mess, shot on ridiculously long lenses and with no tension. If the car fills the entire screen it might as well be stationary (it wasn't though!). With no backdrop or sense of location it just doesn't work. Now, I would understand what ended up on screen if this had been a low budget production that had tried to fake what didn't happen. But it DID! At high speed, not at 20 km/h. I saw it. It was marvelous! The editing was... well I can't say terrible, but at times bad, as pointless shots are inserted at the wrong moment - yeah, I'm talking about you, "look at Bourne through a steering wheel"- shot! Despite all of that it was still an entertaining and almost ridiculous action scene. Imagine Fast and Furious levels of car action you'd actually believe, done without CGI! But how much better could it have been if someone had given Greengrass a wide angle lens and a less frantic editor? It's sad when brilliant people who should know better, who've done much better, screw up like this. When they start imitating those who copied them in the first place, without the talent.
Finally, 2 1/2: Politics. Now, I'm liberal, anti-surveillance, pro- Snowden, ... and yet I think it went too far. It was too on the nose. Clearly Greengrass has an agenda, and boy does he want you to agree with him. Especially in the first half it seriously lacks subtlety, and it hurts the movie. Captain America: Civil War deals with the same subject, and does it so much better.
Die Sturmflut (2006)
Rather well done... if you don't care about the script
The movie has nice special effects (especially when considering that a lot was computer generated, even rain..., and that in a TV movie), decent acting, nice sets and OK camera-work, soundtrack etc. But then the script... How could they? I could live with the clichés, but the love story was terrible. Bollywood can do it more believable. And the people who had to die... why? Overall I would say that you can actually watch the movie if you have nothing else to do, but just don't expect too much (but who would anyway when watching a RTL TV production?). It seems to me that the producers wanted something serious, if you consider the effort, the details they cared about. Something like Titanic (historical event + love story) but in failed. 5 out of 10, for the effort and the missing urge to switch off.