carkol2005 Reviews

Blonde (2022)

Nobody can deny it's exploitative

[5/10 · 28 November 2022]

The movie and the director tries but eventually it is just uninspired, shallow and melodramatic. You know you are in trouble when the narrative feels like a handful of disjointed scenes, with no subtlety whatsoever. Ana de Armas also tries, and actually succeeds in some instances of the movie, but she can't help it when the script is so amateurishly written and the sequences don't have a real resolution to give the movie the strength it needs. This is, definitely, one textbook example of "Less is more and more can be substantially less". The writer thinks "we need drama, so let's fill the movie with drama in all places, all the time". But that's not how you build drama. You build it when the narrative needs to. And when I say drama, I do not mean tragic moments, but moments when Marilyn faces some conflict. The director has this idea of, when something of this nature happens to her, she needs to either cry or have an outburst. Literally, at the end of almost any sequence. But that does not work, at all, because by doing that all the moments have a similar dramatic weight, and hence the narrative becomes flat, and you kill the drama. In fact, it reminded of The Revenant (2015) in that regard. Why not make the character more subtle, more three-dimensional? It doesn't have to pretend to be a tear-jerker all the time, because that's very dumb! Anyway, that's the main flaw with the movie.

The other flaws? First, the sketchy nature of the sequences. There are some big moments in the movie that are basically skipped over. The movie takes a huge leap into Marilyn's life and, in that lapse of time, many important things happen to her that you don't get to see, but they are referenced later. So when she mentions the first time she and JFK "met", all you think is: "Yeah, I guess. It was never shown". Another example of this is when she breaks up with Charlie Chaplin Jr. And Edward G. Robinson Jr. This is a very important plot point in the movie as she says to one of them she can't live withouth him. But later on, they appeared to blackmail Joe DiMaggio, as if there had been bad blood between them and Marilyn. And you go again "Yeah, I guess. It was never shown". Marilyn, as a character, becomes sketchy too. For example, there is a scene when she finds out Jane Russell is going to make much money for a movie than her. But the movie never showed Marilyn to be narcissistic, or competitive, or envious in any way. So, this trait of her personality is thrown at you, with no previous development whatsoever, and it comes and goes in a flash.

Second. The surreal/weird moments of the movie. You see, for some reason the movie often includes some strange "modern" elements in its narrative. One of them are the CGI-rendered phoetus sequences. And let me tell you: they are so repetitive and hammered in and unnecesary I cringed not few times. And they are included not one, not two, but three times in the movie! The second time around the phoetus even has a voiceover!! And Marilyn replied to it. Yeah, not kidding. Also, when Marilyn is drugged some background characters faces are badly distorted using some After Effects tool or something. It shouts "lack of subtlety" from the mountaintops.

And third, which everyone agrees with: its exploitation of the character(s). I don't know why, but the movie is obssessed with portraying all the characters as sadistic, or horny, or "controversial", if you know what I mean. Take for example, the scene when JFK is talking by the phone. What was the point of that scene, other than to try to feature another r*** scene involving Marilyn? And I could pass one or two, but when every people who is sexually involved with Marilyn has one, everything makes me believe that they exist just to be exploitative and to cash onto the sexualization of the Marilyn figure.

Now, it's time for some positives. For one, I cannot deny, the movie has some style and some identity to it. There's always this sense of dread and morbidness around Marilyn, and that adds a strange vibe to the movie, something I think these kinds of biopic need so bad. Also, I was much more impressed with Ana de Armas than I thought I was gonna be. On the other hand, there are some sequences that are very well directed and scripted. For example, when she is rehearsing a scene from "Don't Bother to Knock". I thought the camerawork in that scene was perfect and the final breakout of Marilyn's character was very well done. The initial sequence was really good too. I also appreciated some of the outbursts she has throughout the movie, for example in the "Some Like it Hot" scene. The final sequence could have been bombastic and in your face, as the rest of the movie, and it was handled good enough. Marilyn lying in bed, with only her legs in the frame, conveys a sense of calmness and subtlety of a tragic event that is much effective than almost everything else. The movie has its highs and lows but, overall, it's pretty mediocre, as it could have been much much better than what we got. 5/10.

The Matrix Resurrections (I) (2021)

One hour into the movie I already could understand the backlash

[2/10 · 31 December 2021]

What can I say about this? We all knew that a third sequel to the Matrix couldn't work. It literally makes no sense since all of the plot threads were closed in Revolutions, and there was absolutely no room for a sequel. So now this happens and... let me spare you some time, ok? This is nothing but Warner desperately trying to hold on to some nostalgia to cash in, and it's so unapologetically meta that you can see they themselves are trying to cope with the guilt. In a childish manner I would say.

To be fair, the first 40 minutes could lead into something decent, I mean not great because the superb action and the acting were almost absent in this leftover of a sequel, but it COULD be something at least passable and refreshing. Why? Because Lana plays with the line that separates fiction from reality, and that is presented by the point of view of a tortured, suffering Neo, something we have never seen before. After that, is just a redoing of the first Matrix but with 0 sense. Nothing to add on that, because is just that. Shot by shot. You got Zion (well, it's called Io this time), Neo waking up from the Matrix, all that. It's an embarrassment of a "sequel" and something the creators should apologize for, honestly. I mean, how lazy do you have to be in order to give up your script in the first 40 minutes and running into copying the first Matrix afterwards? It's something that resonantes with literally noone, and that's why this is being hated so much: because everybody already saw the first Matrix movie in the first place!! And you know the funny thing is? The creators of this abomination know this, and proceeded to make this movie nonetheless.

I should give this one a 1/10, because this is worthless, and gives you nothing, nor even entertainment, but I think i can give the movie a little credit for at least trying in the beginning. PS: discount Agent Smith is the worst cast choice you could ever hope for.

Evangelion: 3.0+1.01 Thrice Upon a Time (2021)

I thought I was prepared for what I was going to see... I really wasn't

[3/10 · 17 August 2021]

Just when it seemed EVA had hit rock bottom with 3.0... well, it kind of did. However, after watching this thing, I actually have to give 3.0 some credit, at least it is only 1h 30 min of suffering, and the Kaworu part was bearable. This new installment... how could I describe it? It is like 5 versions of EVA in one movie, and there is so much, SO MUCH garbage in so many colors and flavors, that there is one moment that scraps the so-bad-it's-good barrier, but it never quite surpassed it. Why? Because there are some good technical aspects. Like it or not, you got to admit that the settings are pretty creative, and the animation, although the 3D was kinda terrible, is amazing at times. I say "at times" because it really depends of the moment. I also have to say, the action has improved significantly over the previous movie. I remark "the technical aspects of it", because if I go into the details of the action sequences, uh boy, it won't be pretty.

The first half of this movie is what I like to call "failed character development". The writers, who are aware of the complete lack of characterization in the previous movie, said "hey! You know what EVA needs? Character development". So, the first part of this movie is about Rei, Shinji and Asuka in Toji's village, and they do... stuff to survive, I guess. Asuka defends the village, Rei takes care of the crops, Shinji... cries I suppose? I found the idea neat at first but, as it went along, I realized how poorly executed it was. I mean, the writing feels so sloppy and incompetent and it's full of inconsistencies. But, the main problem is, without a shadow of a doubt, the excessive focus on Rei's character, which backfires in the end. Almost all the character development focus on her, how she starts off being a braindead doll and becomes more of a pre-Rei II. Let's be clear, I've always thought that the Rei from 3.0 was a completely garbage of a character, non-sensical ad nauseam, but I may appreciate the effort to give her an evolution at last, something I can't say about Mari or Asuka, who is still the same bland, tsundere character, even 14 years later. Shinji also does evolve, but his evolution is fast and completely unearned, I mean he comes out of depression after one talk with Rei?? How can anybody buy into that? Needless to say, Rei's development is the best part of the movie... Until it isn't. MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD. This Rei also dies, right in the middle of the movie. This should have been a heartbreaking moment in the movie, but no. Her death is: 1. Stupid (the justification is idiotic) 2. Pointless (doesn't have any consequences) and 3. A deus ex machina (the movie just wants to get rid of her). After that scene I remember saying: "Oh no, this movie is going to go downhill". And what's more? No Rei makes an appearance ever again, with the exception of one Rei, at the very end, and for absolutely nothing. Forget about her role in EoE, how its connection with Shinji led to the Third Impact. Here, she appears with long hair, she simps for Shinji and goodbye! Actually, the movie might as well have been titled "Simping for Shinji: The Movie" as it's all the women in it do.

The second half of this movie is... Wow, how could I put it simply? One of the most arbitrary, over-the-top, pretentious, unintentionally funny, idiotic and ridiculously philosophic narratives I've ever encountered. It honestly feels like the script has been written by someone whose attention span is 2 pages, so nothing follows a coherent train of thought or logic. Well, on one hand, Rei has died, so the first half of the movie is completely unnecessary and doesn't connect to the rest of the movie. On the other hand, in the second half they focus on the senseless action that characterizes 3.0. But oh boy, it is much much more. Much more of everything. It really caught me off guard. Don't get me wrong, I knew it was gonna be bad, but to go into this bananas direction? I wasn't ready for the insanity.

I remember people saying back in the day that EoE was pretentious and random, but... no no. When I think of pretentious and random, THIS movie takes the cake by a long shot. What we get here is some weird mixture of EoE, Gurren Lagan, Paprika, Inception and a baad baad EVA fan fiction. Why people keep saying the Rebuilds are its own beast, when they are clearly emulating EoE each minute? Furthermore, the Rebuilds were never philosophical, and I respected that. I thought it was time to make a more light, action-oriented EVA, because at the end of the day, the other EVA already exists. But noo, they had to do it. They saved all the philosophical gibberish for 3.0+1.0. And boy, there is so much of it. And believe me when I say, nothing makes any sense whatsoever, there is like an Antiverse or some crap, and that was never explained before, there is an "Evangelion Imaginary", and that was never explained before... There are so many loose ends in this movie that it reaches a point of humor, I'm not kidding here. The rest? It's just somebody trying to copy the dramatic moments of EoE. Misato dies, for example. But, unlike her death in EoE, it is not harsh, cruel, depressing, brave, cute, sad or epic in its own way, she just explodes because the plot has no place for her. And nobody cares at all. Besides (get this), Gendo says to Shinji that is maturity, so yeah, this movie mistakes maturity for not giving a care about somebody dying. That's how low we have gotten, people.

Speaking of Gendo, he is like the big revelation of this movie, almost all the second half is about him, but in my humble opinion they messed it all up badly. First of all, Gendo was no relevant in the Rebuilds. Until that moment, we didn't have any clue about his plans, his motivations, or anything. So, to suddenly give all this attention to this character felt out of place and forced. And they have the guts to imply the good old cliché of "Hey look, like father like son". Give me a break! Second of all, they made him like an angel, or God, or hell do I know, and he looks hilariously over the top, like Gurren Lagan, and it cracked me up, when it pretended to be the most serious, dramatic thing in the universe.

The retcons. Listen to this folks. According to this movie, Asuka is also a clone, like Rei. Isn't it charming? Also, Kaworu met Kaji long time ago for some reason (or maybe this is not reality, they never establish that), and they are like big big friends, and that is expected to be a twist? Or what? I don't get it, who cares if Kaworu is Kaji's friend, or if he is a commander? Not only that, but they even retcon 2.0 by making Kaji, out of nowhere, the one who stops Third Impact. And for that matter, what is the point of Kaji in these movies besides all these stupid twists?

All in all, this was just entertainingly bad. I cannot respect what they did with the franchise since 3.0. The writers (Anno included) don't seem to realise what was good about Eva in the first place. The ship of Mari and Shinji at the end, come on Anno, maybe are you projecting a little? Because nobody cares about Mari, not even Shinji, so this is not believable, and even less when, before that, you flood us with cheap philosophy. Either you make this Gurren Lagan, or Karekano, or Evangelion, but you cannot make them all at the same time, for god's sake. 3/10 and thank god the Rebuilds are done.

Space Jam: A New Legacy (2021)

Honestly, what did you expect?

[3/10 · 25 July 2021]

So yeah, this movie is bad. It's a blatant corporativistic circlejerk of Warner, nothing make any sense and it's filled with awkward moments. The audience for this is Warner executives, Warner workers and their families. It's neither for children nor for adults. Yeah, all of that is true. But seriously, have you watched the original in the last, I don't know, 5 years? Maybe it has more heart than this one, but it also has the exact same problems, at least in what concerns the corporativistic aspect and the main protagonist. So I don't get why this is bashed, and not the previous one, outside of blind nostalgia. Furthermore, I find funny that this is corporativistic garbage, but all the Marvel and DC movies are not. Who bashes those movies for those aspects?? Almost no one. Anyway, I'm not gonna defend this movie, other than some jokes that I find funny and creative, in the Looney Tunes vibe. 2.5/10.

Slaughterhouse-Five (1972)

How have I never heard about this??

[8/10 · 20 July 2021]

I can't believe it. Maybe this is not true for everybody, but I feel like for non-American audiences Kurt Vonnegut, the author of the book this movie is based on, is really under the scope. And that's a crime. So, I immediately caught on, and... Sure, maybe this movie lacks the heavy themes of depression, senselessness, irony, reflection about time or dark humor the book is full of, but you guys need to remember that this is a movie, there is a limited length you can work of. So, for what it is, I think it follows pretty faithfully the events of the book. The direction? Pretty good. The characters? Great. The time travel/flashbacks? Better done in the book, but it's excusable for narrative purposes. It is true that the part of the (imaginary?) planet was a little bit rushed, that's the only major flaw. Otherwise, as an adaptation, I am down with it. 7.5/10.

Black Widow (2021)

Another run-of-the-mill stinker. Kinda the norm with these movies

[4/10 · 12 July 2021]

And you know what? I expected it to be another thing, dunno why. Even when it's Marvel and it is always the same god-damned thing, with Natasha Romanoff I thought they could pull it off as a simple but effective action movie. Too bad nothing of that was given to me. What I got was a senseless plot, a pretentious dialogue wanting to belong to a family drama but failing and a CGI so bad it almost killed the movie by itself. For example, there's a scene a helicopter falls and crushes to the ground, as a pathetic attempt of making humor (hey, Marvel's trademark there). But how the hell do you pretend to be funny when the helicopter looks fake as hell and has CGI effects all over it? Come on, that was pitiful dude. When even the CGI is against you, you know you are in big trouble. Then, one of the main plot points of this movie are feromones. Yes, you heard right. And that plot point appears magically as a plot device in the moment to create some conflict, so it's completely stupid. The action sometimes is kinda interesting, I give the movie some credit for that, but the movie is way too long and way too talky, and in the end, for what? Just make a straightforward action movie Marvel, ok? Is that so hard? By the way, I don't wanna talk about the post credit scene, is one of the worst ass-pulls after credits I've ever seen. 4/10.

Nocturama (2016)

Better than people think, but...

[7/10 · 1 June 2021]

I can understand why they have their reservations over this movie. Some essential plot points are barely touched upon, the central motivation of the characters is kinda bland and underdeveloped and the lack of realism is really annoying, specially towards the end. But this movie hits a fair amount of highs as well. The cast is interesting and nuanced, the direction is bold and it works, the score fits the movie quiet well and, in the first half of this movie, it never ceased to intrigue and weird me out. It's true that the second half has its mentioned problems, but it was kinda interesting too. The fact that the characters have such a ball in the mall when it's a total contradiction of their values... is it not hilariously ironic? And the movie never verbalized this, which it's a very clever way of conveying information. But, of course, that makes me wonder something as well: Why these characters are so dumb? I mean, so dumb? I know they are young, but come on! They make some (well, almost all) inexplicable actions in this movie!! That drags the movie down in my opinion. But, overall, I think it's more than decent. 6.8/10.

The Woman in the Window (2021)

Frankenstein of a movie

[4/10 · 17 May 2021]

First it tries (and fails miserably) to be Rear Window, then it becomes Requiem for a Dream, then it ends as a crappy slasher movie. For what? All these styles come out of nowhere and don't have any place to go, and the script felt uninspired and fragmented, with no real connection or resolution to each of them. No wonder how poor received it is, because it appeals to literally no one. 4/10.

Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)

Worse than the original cut (yes, really)

[3/10 · 2 April 2021]

I'm not the biggest fan of the original cut, or Whedon, or DC, or superheroes movies for that matter, but is this supposed to be a joke or something? How can this thing be so overpraised? This is 4 hours of absolutely nothing, dude. Sorry, actually it is something. It's just an overcooked leftover of a movie, filled with the absolutely worst of Zack Snyder's repertoire.

You needed slow-mo in your life? Well, you are getting it in this "movie". This guy can't live without goddamn super-slow motion. One hour into the movie I was getting so much of it that I was ready to cut my wrists off. Then you got slow-mo within slow-mo, thanks to Flash, of course. It already becomes self-parody. And I know that the dude has a fetish over that same old shtick (since 2006 he's doing it) and I knew from the get-go what I was gonna have. But man, I guess deep inside I was hoping for this guy to grow the hell out of it, to become a little mature. But no, he still thinks it's epic to include slow-mo in every action scene. How can he not understand that this is not epic, it's not amazing, but dumb to abuse the slow-mo?? And jeez, I am aware that the original cut had it too, but this is another whole level of stupidity.

Look, I can talk for hours and hours about all the unnecessary scenes this cut presents (which were edited off from the original cut), but I think the biggest insult is the last 30 minutes or so (the so-called 'epilogue'). Say what you want about the original cut, at least they had the decency to give the movie a "proper" closure. This one sequel-baits in a really insulting way, throws at you a bunch of totally irrelevant characters and leaves you shamelessly in your chair, wondering about the meaning of life and about the 4 hours of your life you have completely wasted. Some Snyder fanboys will defend this cut on the basis that it develops the characters better. Does it really? Obviously in the original cut the characters felt so rushed, so bland and shallow that I can see why people feel that way. But come on people, seriously? How can anybody think that these characters are well developed? You gave Cyborg maybe some daddy issues, and that's it, dude. In fact, everybody has father issues in this!! I guess that counts as character development for these people... Oh, this cut also includes a really creepy scene with Flash and some girl that, unless you read the comics, you won't know who she is, or why the hell is in this movie. And, like I say, the scene is creepy and predatory as hell and yet it tries to be... romantic? Funny? I don't know. Words can't possibly tell how I hated that scene. By the way, the Song to the Siren doesn't deserve to be butchered in this fashion. It's true that, in this version, Darkseid actually appears and the resolution of the main antagonist (Steppenwolf) is way better. Did 4 hours make up for all that? Idk, you tell me.

The square format. Oh boy, what a failure of a choice. Did it add anything at all? Well, nobody has watched it in IMAX, so the answer is no. I watched it in streaming and it sucked, plain and simple. Even that they couldn't get right!

Other than that, this movie carries the same problems the original cut had. Nothing makes sense, the villain motivations are dumb and, although it's a superhero movie, everybody looks super intense and the colors are so dark, as if it takes itself as seriously as some really heavy drama. The characters are annoying, robotic and devoid of personality. Flash as the comic relief is pure cringe, and Wonder Woman has shovel face throughout the movie. Don't get me wrong, Gal Gadot is so cool, but in this movie she has nothing to work for, kinda sad actually.

All in all, this is, as Roger Ebert would say, chewing gum for the mind (just figure chewing gum for 4 hours). All I want is that, some day, superhero movies fall out of fashion. I am totally honest, the genre doesn't hold up anymore, not as if it ever was amazing. I don't care whether it's DC, or Marvel, but if we are so desperate now that we are trying to reimagine new cuts for your crappy movies, it really needs to die out. I guess it will continue to live on until the profits begin to drop. 3/10.

Evangelion: 3.0 You Can (Not) Redo (2012)

Man, they really jumped the shark with this one....

[3/10 · 5 December 2020]

From one of the greatest shows of all time, with rich themes and nearly perfect character development, comes a movie so bad it gave depression to its creator... again. And reasonably so. Not only kills the development of the previous two films, but it resets everything for absolute NO goddamn reason, the fights are confusing, and the time skip is unnecesary, but hey! There is more of everything. More explosions! More angels! More impacts! More Beast Mode! More Kaworu! More EVAs! More spears! More, but way less... The narrative is pathetic, it wants to sound clever by introducing a world that we don't understand, the characters are pathetic, I don't know what is wrong with Asuka, or with Rei, but these brainlets are not characters-they are tools. If you allow it, you may get distracted by the Shiro Sagisu score, but it won't last very long. How the music can be epic if the action is not? It's like trying to insert maturity into a Yugi-Oh episode! So, if the action sucks and the characters suck, what it's left? A bunch of pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo. Surely the bottom-of-the-barrel of the Eva fans will mistake this for something "deep". Lol. Let's be perfectly clear. Unlike the show, there is no connecting the dots. Here, there are not even dots to connect.

Never watch this. If you've seen the Rebuilds and you can't help it, I guess you have to watch it-otherwise, don't even bother. Even the other Rebuilds pale in comparison to the show, but this thing sucks on an astronomical level. I have the feeling that the fourth one will be even worse. 3/10.

Tenet (2020)

Nolan is Nolan's worst enemy.

[5/10 · 14 September 2020]

Nolan, my dude, you need a break. Not only from movies, but from life in general. You may need to calm down a little bit.

Now, seriously, what is the problem with this guy? Why, in every movie he makes nowadays, there is always this necessity for making super, super serious characters, always looking super, super intense and talking like soulless machines? I guess that, since the Dark Knight (and I like that movie btw) that is his trademark, but the guy is not Tarkovsky, as much as he would love to be. He always thinks he's making super artsy, cerebral, sophisticated movies and, following that train of thought, his characters are always trying to talk "deep" stuff, spewing exposition like there is no tomorrow. You know, something Nolan is known for.

I still like Interstellar, Inception, the Dark Knight, and even Dunkirk. My favorites of him are Memento, the Dark Knight and Inception. My least favorites are the Dark Knight Rises and this one.

So, you thought his movies are over-expositive? Man, this one makes the rest of them look like 2001 A Space Odyssey in comparison. This movie has one of the worst expositition incontinence I've ever seen in a movie. Always talking talking talking talking, and always trying so fricking hard to explain the plot. There is a sequence in which Michael Caine appears to explain the plot to the protagonist, and the only purpose of the sequence and the character is that, explaining the plot. Literally, it's the only appearance of Michael Caine in the movie. And guess what? The movie doesn't even bother to give him an inch of characterization, apart from being English. How insulting is that??

You may think, the plot of the movie is really complicated, so that's the reason why the plot needs to be explained by the characters every minute. But no. If you think that, you've just been fooled by Nolan. At the end of the day, the plot is that there is this realy really bad antagonist, Kenneth Brannagh, and these good guys, Washington and Pattinson. Brannagh has cancer, so he just wants to die and (because he's bad and her fiancé doesn't love him I guess??) he wants to take the world with him. So, the future humanity contacts him to provide him with some technology that allows objects to inverse entropy, so in these things time runs backwards. By some convoluted plan that is explained over and over in the movie (and still it's confusing), Brannagh would be able to inverse the entire planet so, by some logic, the world would collapse and everybody would die. The future is OK with that plan since they also want to die because (and this is explained in the last 20 minutes in the movie, I swear to God) the world is literally drowning itself in climate change, so they think "No need to keep living, we will just kill the past so that we will die too!". This plan doesn't make any sense in a lot of ways, but the most insulting one is that they don't even know if by killing the past, the future will die, so what's the reason for this desperate suicide? Do you want me to believe that a future Earth that is capable of, basically reverse time, can't do anything about climate change but giving up and waiting for suicide?? The worst thing is, although this is really crucial to the plot, nothing is developed but instead it's explaining by Brannagh in three lines of dialogue at the end of the movie. Instead of giving a stupid explanation that don't make much sense, why the movie doesn't develop that plot point throughout the movie little by little? The reason is, they don't have time for that. They have so much exposition to talk, that unless the movie lasts for 4 hours, it's impossible for Nolan to establish the plot without verbalizing it constantly.

The reversion of time. Sorry to say it, but it felt extremely gimmicky. Not only there is that, but there is time travel too. That's weird, because Nolan himself said that this movie is not about time travel. Dude, your movie is about reversion of time and time travel, are you kidding me? There is bearly anything else in your movie!! Look, I'm not saying that you can't make an action movie with time inversion, because you can. In fact, how cool could that be? But, I'm afraid that in this movie, it's really underutilized and pointless throughout the last third of the movie. Basically, in the end, there is this war of the good guys vs the bad guys, and the good guys army splits in two halves, one it is inverted, and the other half isn't. Why do they do that? They clearly establish that an inverted bullet is as dangerous as a normal bullet. Not more, not less. So, is just to confuse the enemy? Idk, it's never shown. There is actually no reason, they just have to use the inversion technology. That is why I say that it felt really gimmicky in a good chunk of the movie.

If we dive into the characters, you will see what is really lacking here. Washington and Pattinson really tried to give the characters some level of personality, being Pattinson the one who really give one nice impersonation of a secondary character. Washington, on the other side, tries but his script gets on the middle of him. When he is fighting is fine, but when he's not you will see that something is missing. No personality can be shown if your only chance to shine is through reacting to expository dialogue... Being fair, Washington's character could have been developed through his relationship with Brannagh's wife, but that went almost nowhere too. And speaking of that woman... Well, she is the biggest victim of Nolan. Fully, completely. Her acting is really stiff (as Brannagh's), but pretty sure it's not her fault- it's Nolan's fault. Look at her acting and you will see I'm right. She acts serious, very serious, almost comically serious, and taking account of the directing of actors in Nolan's movies, I'm sure that those were Nolan's instructions. And her character is, like every woman in Nolan's movies (except maybe Anne Hathaway in the Dark Knight Rises), very bland. Look, I get it ok? A son is something important. But if you are a woman this doesn't mean that all your emotions are connected with your son, ok? That's a very insulting way of portraying women. She, throughout the movie, keeps saying "My son. My son. My son. I'm nothing without my son". Besides, she is only that. She is the object to be rescued and that's it. In fact, this movie reminded me of James Bond not a few times, with the difference that James Bond has wit, charm and some development.

And folks, we are forgetting one thing. The Nolan twist and the end of the movie. Because you know, the guy needs them like air to breathe. This is, though, the least compelling of all Nolan twists. Basically Washington comes from the future and he knows Pattinson since many years ago, because he created and ran Tenet and he recruited Pattinson, being the Washington that we see in the movie the one that hasn't travelled yet, so he's oblivious of all that (since in his timeline, that hasn't happened yet). But this is completely unrelated to the plot, unnecesary and pointless, and opens a lot of contrived questions that didn't need to be asked nor answered. It looks like a twist by contract. Whatever, another Nolanism.

By the way, the score of this movie sounds like someone trying to copy Inception's BSO. It's like Hans Zimmer without Zimmer being in it.

Now it's time to talk about positives. It's sad, but even though I'm not the biggest fan of Nolan's style of directing and scripting, I usually like his movies. But in this movie even the acting felt uninspired, and that never happened in a Nolan movie before. If I had to point for positives, I guess the action scenes were creative, and the plot is, or could have been, really interesting. It is like a higher, sophisticated version of a James Bond movie with certain elements of sci-fi. More than that, I walked out very underwhelmed, even when I was ready to accept all the traits of a Nolan movie. 4.5/10

The Diary of a Teenage Girl (2015)

An unpleasant experience with no paid-off at all.

[2/10 · 24 August 2020]

I'm not sure how to even start with this one. First let me say I'm baffled with the ratings. 6.9/10? 87/100 in Metascore? No, no, no. They couldn't be more wrong this time. This movie is... undescribably bad.

Ok, so the movie is about pedophilia... is it really? I'm not sure. If you think you will watch a shocking, perturbing movie about pedophilia, let me say to you right now that you won't get satisfied. And no, this movie doesn't glorify pedophilia, nor condemns it. The movie uses it like a controversial tool, just to pretend being trangresive and edgy at the same time. Pedophilia is seen here as a subset of sex, that's it. It's just part of this teenage girl sex life. And look, I have to admit, in the beginning it was a little bit shocking. But as the movie went forward, you will feel more and more insulted, asking "What is the point"? Wait, what is this?"

And boy, let's talk about the girl. Nothing to talk really. This girl has two personality traits: being horny and being melodramatic. NOTHING ELSE guys. 1 h 40 min with this annoying, bland, teenage girl. She is horny. She wants it. That's it. "Wow, that sounds like a honest, realistic portrayal of a teenage girl, it might be interesting", you may think. Oh no, no, no. Reject that idea right off. Nothing is interesting here. It's not like Trainspotting, nor Christine F. It doesn't explore the stuff the characters go through, nor fleshes them out in any way, like Kids (1995). The plot doesn't drive them along because there's absolutely 0 script. And no, I didn't read the graphic novel this thing is based on, but for what I've heard it looks like this is a very free adaptation. It doesn't surprise me one iota.

Oh and I forgot, the girl suposedly has an interest in drawing, but the movie is so bad at developing characters, I mean, so bad, that this plot point is completely brushed off of the movie, to the point it looks like an afterthought. And you know why? Because this movie has a love for pointless, exploitative scenes. All the scenes can be summed up in: sex scene, drug scene, pedo scene, drug scene, oh! let's pretend for a moment this girl is having some internal struggle, nevermind another pedo scene again! That's this movie. What's the point? Besides, the sequences go nowhere: there is no tension, no build up, no continuity, like a freak show, but hey! It's the 70s, and a 15 year old girl has an affair with her 35 year old stepfather, so I guess we can pull some controversy out of it...

My theory is that this movie wants to be American Pie (besides the pedophilia), but doesn't have the courage to admit it and going all the way. The point is, American Pie tries to be funny, tries to make something out of some idiotic teenage people, tries to have some situation jokes, tries something. And this movie doesn't. It tries to be intelligent, and like "honest", but fails miserably in every possible way. Guys, I'm serious here. There's nothing good about this movie, except maybe the acting, which is average at best.

The "resolution" of the movie, if you can call it that, it's like some douche trying to make black humor to be transgressive and controversial, but he just lands as insulting, pathetic and non sensical. I won't spoil it, because you know what? It also goes nowhere, so really nothing to spoil folks! Oh, and how could I ever forget? The girl has lesbian sex too. Why? Is she really bi? Is she experimenting? Nothing is developed or established, so who knows? Actually, I tell you why. Because the protagonist has to get laid with anybody, anytime. How else would we have a movie if not? It's like if I make a "realistic" movie about teenage boys and all the caracters do is smoking weed in the bedroom, with no continuity. You would say my movie is worthless, wouldn't you?

In addition, the movie at times insert these quarky, out of place drawings pasted onto the frame, as if it wants to look cute, and it's the most obnoxious thing in the world.

Overall, I just can't help it but to hate with vitriol these kind of movies. Movies that try sooo hard to be something more than exploitative, like "realistic" cinema, but fail miserably and end up being sexploitation with a big budget to hide it. Not only that, but watching this thing is an unpleasant, pointless, and dull experience. I mean, if you are gonna include pedophilia in your movie, do something valuable with it. 2/10.

Frozen II (2019)

This videoclip is getting really old...

[5/10 · 14 February 2020]

Wow, ladies and gentlemen. Im baffled of how little effort Disney executives (and executors in this case) put into this. They surely thought "hey! kids will buy our toys anyway!" and assembled a kind of a movie with no regard of quality or intelligence. And look, I had my problems with the first one, but I admit it, after watching this, I kind of start to appreciate it more. The plot was paced right, the characters had some depth (for a Disney kids movie, ok) and the songs had a purpose, the conflict felt real at some sort. Here you got none of that. Elsa, what did they do to you? You are just pure videoclip material in this one! She changes outfits and hairstyles and the plot resolves itself in the meantime. Kinda sad actually. You remember Let it Go, people? Of course you do, duh. The song is kinda decent, but the purpose of the song was so cathartic and liberating that it was kinda fascinating to watch. Here, although there are some great songs, they have no purpose, no weight. ESPECIALLY when Elsa is alone. And like I said, everything is so rushed, everything resolves itself so fast. Surely you saw the trailer, where Elsa is trying to move herself through the waves. Well, that sequence has potential, but (mild spoiler) a horse appears out of the nowhere and saves the day! Btw, the way the plot unfolds is really bad, it's confusing, it's delivered through a very bad exposition, and in the end it's completely irrelevant. Ah, and the romance seemed an afterthought too! Olaf is annoying (more so than in the first movie) and the humor is stupid, neither for kids nor adults. The goods? The music is pretty fantastic. The rest is the most average/mediocre thing ever. I give this a 4.5.

Last Christmas (2019)

A vast whole of nothingness

[4/10 · 10 January 2020]

I'm gonna be straight with this one because no one put too much thought on this movie anyway: this thing is emptily forgettable, disgustingly political (and contradictorily so) because nowadays any movie director that doesn't have the wit or the guts to make a fine peace of work have to shove politics to fill the blanks, annoying inconsistent characters (like Emilia Clarke's, is she promiscuous? does she want to commit? it depends on the scene I guess), unearned manipulative pathos in the worst Spielberg style imaginable, an endless number of plot holes, absolutely not funny at all (and boy it tries), weird scenes that don't make sense, a boring and pathetic romance which it's just another of those made-up Hollywood fantasies we've seen thousands of times, a final twist that will make you want to throw up and, what is maybe the worst of all, a movie trying to be "deep" and "emotional" when it's just nothing, a bland pile of nothing. Positives? Not very much. I got to admit, the addition of Emilia Clarke to this movie really helps it, without her the movie would be even worse. She acts well, she has charisma, and she has the moderate charm this movie needs. The direction is not something to gawk at but it has a few surprises.

All in all, there's 0 reasons to watch this. I never thought I would say this, but watch Love Actually instead. 4/10

Midsommar (2019)

Ari Aster has officially stagnated himself into his own ego

[6/10 · 14 December 2019]

Nonetheless, I can't say this movie is bad either. But this is often the problem with Ari Aster (the director of this movie): the guy usually gets intoxicated with his own style. Don't get me wrong, his movies show some talent, some skill and some directing style: his zenital shots, his unique composition of the frame or his strange sense of humor are some of the cards that always brings up to the table. Pity that the guy is so full of himself that these elements appear even when the narration doesn't need them to.

I have to talk (MASSIVE) spoilers in this one folks because the movie requires to, sorry. Basically you got these friends and this couple who take a trip to Sweden to make a research about a "midsummer festival" and (why not) to have a good time in summer... and what a surprise! It's actually a cult. We the audience and the group of friends find this out when the people in the cult sacrifice two guys because they ended their "circle of life" at the age of 72. Now this scene is really gruesome and shocking as we find out the way these people function, and thereafter we know that something bad it's going to happen to all of them. The movie has a really good job of building that tension, a good atmosphere and a good sense of dread, I have to admit that.

The problem of the movie (scriptwise) comes out later when every one of them ends up being murdered (except the couple). THEN is when I realise that these characters don't have a brain. They MUST know by then something is really off and that this cult is extremely dangerous, but as every cliche horror movie they act as stupid people because the script need it to. And yes, I know that I always talk about character development, but God these people are bland! Let's take for example the main character, the blonde chick. I don't understand her at all. I know that everyone is been drugged and all but, I'm sorry, this girl is completely retarded! She witnessed horrible things, she presences two suicides and she still stays there! Not only that, but none of her friends think that it's enough, that they should go! They want to make a thesis about the place they say. Dude, are you kidding me? Don't you see all the crap around you?

Another thing that the writing should have made better is what relates to the cult. In the beginning it was fine: the life cycle, the stoicism in their actions, all the craziness that define a pagan cult. But at,the end of the movie it just became too outlandish and bombastic, to the point it just feels unrealistic and artificial, just for the visual insanity. For example, all that dance contest was too much in my opinion, it just feels off. And speaking of that, the protagonist wins?? What a coincidence! But what condition does she have to win? She is not that strong, or mentally stable. No, they obviously didn't let her win in any way, even one chick at one point throws up! She CLEARLY wins by her own merits. These contrivances and conveniences are everywhere in the movie, and I found myself wondering"why? why? What is the reason behind this?" several times while watching this.

What makes me sad the most is that there is a great great movie within Midsommar, somewhere. Take for example the scene when the girl freaks out in a panic attack when she finds out that his boyfriend is mating with a really gorgeous ginger and all the girls start panicking with her. Wouldn't it have been great if this showed how these girls do this to psychologically help her and condicionate her inside their group in a way a cult usually does? But nothing, this idea is not touched ever again in the movie.

And what about the ending? It's fine I guess. It has some mentioned problems, like what about the bear skin? What is the purpose other than being weird? It could have been much clearer if we knew a thing about these traditions or the "train of thought" behind the cult. Also it seems to me that the girl has become crazy? I don't know, it's too much vague for me to understand this girl and her motivations. And speaking of motivations, what about the Swedish friend (Peele was his name I think)? In the end it seems that this is all he wanted all along? Killing all of his friends? None of them did see it coming? How insane has a person to be in order to plan to kill 9 people and drag all to Sweden? Again, if the characters were better developed I might understand it but as we were shown in the movie we don't have any clue about his personality, his motivations, or anything. We just have to assume he's a crazy religious fanatic and that nobody noticed it ever before.

This movie was going to be a 7 until the second third of the movie, but as a whole the problems amount to a really considerable pack. I give it a 6/10.

Downsizing (2017)

This is not even a movie

[3/10 · 30 November 2019]

It's more like a TV-miniseries episodes poorly crammed in 2 hours with really bad editing in between one another. And this is the major problem with this "movie": once it starts to develop one plot point, it abandons completely to move forward to the next. This is one abhorrent screenwriting mistake and a very common one between amateur writers. Basically it's the first thing you MUSTN'T DO when you write a screenplay.

Another problems? Well, you got glaring inconsistencies in the plot and in the characters, like for example Matt Damon's wife. I won't spoil anything, but in one moment in the movie she takes a decision that doesn't make a bit of goddamn sense. To be fair, the movie until that point was really interesting and it seemed to be building to something significant, but in the moment she makes that decision the movie goes downhill with no breaks.

The characters are also horribly developed, not only the wife but also Matt Damon. He is this bland, uninteresting vessel of a person who does nothing but being a puppet to the plot, no personality whatsoever. The other characters like the Thai girl are obnoxious, with no weight in the plot (like Chris Waltz) or just like they were been cut off in post-production (like the scientist and all this stupid plan of saving the human race). Again, it's distracting because first you think these people are building into something but later you will see them turning into love clichés or background characters.

The premise may seem promising (not giving too much away, basically some people are been downsized to spare natural resources and alleviate the economy), but don't let it fool you: by the third act you'll end up thinking that you're watching a horrible mix of Avatar and Deep Impact.

The humor is awkward and dry and non-existent most of the times, which is unforgivable for a director like Alexander Payne. Dude, you made Nebraska and Election! The guy KNOWS how to write jokes! What happened in this movie? Has his brain been downsizing or something?

Trying to look for positives in this movie, I guess the only thing I came up with is the first 20 minutes. They make a fairly good commentary on social issues, on segregation, and that's it. Nothing amazing but it's not bad. The direction is so-so, but on the other hand, the editing is pretty terrible! Some scenes cut away before they even end! Obviously this should have been made into a TV-series because it feels rushed and clustered. I can't give this much more than a 3/10.

About Time (I) (2013)

Apparently I'm in the minority here.

[3/10 · 20 April 2019]

Atrocious movie. Literally I've never seen a movie with such a high regard and such a big budget being so consistently insulting to the intelligence of the audience.

All the characters are annoyingly happy all the time (except the guy who hates children, because you know cynical=hates children right? Everybody knows that!). They are either archetypes or bland as hell. The movie hammers CONSTANTLY the theme of LOVE, LOVE LOVE WILL CONQUER THE WORLD to the point it feels like satire or a Saturday morning cartoon. What love?! The guys have no chemistry!! Like, at all!! Are you kidding me?? They get laid once and they are in love apparently! It also seems soo immature, the guy like trying to show off with the time travel. It's not funny, it serves no purpose and it's soooo cringy...

Cartoonish as well is the script: blatantly artificial and inconsistently paced. I mean, first the movie follows the events with a fairly reasonable timing, then suddenly jumpes off years and years into the future! Hence what you achieve is murdering the tension, and by the way, there is not a single main tension in the movie! You got subplots where there is some tension, it's quickly solved, and suddenly the movie moves on into another time lapse!!! Infuriating!!! I was about to KILL myself with this garbage! No really I mean it, with every choice they make I was feeling sicker and sicker, wandering how retarded this director and writers were.

Margot Robbie is in this movie, and still I'm wondering why, because its character was completely worthless.

Oh and how could I forget? There is time travel in this movie, but I must warn you: it will make even less sense than the usual time travel you see in other movies. And what a surprise! It serves no purpose 85% of the movie. You could erase it from the movie until the ending and the idiotic plot wouldn't be affected!! Furthermore, the reasons the guy travels in time are, until the third act, so idiotic and absurd that I almost thought it was a joke! But no, this stinker of a movie thinks that has heart, that shows how love works (no it doesn't) and believes in these fairy tales not even Disney would buy! If there were some jokes I could let it pass, but nothing: this crap is meant to be taken seriously.

Any positives? Well, I guess the dresses are pretty when we are in the wedding. The cinematography is not terrible either.

But the cherry on top is the ending. I guess it's the part that the people praise. Honestly we all know why: because it's a tearjerker. I know it, you know it. Nothing else.

The Florida Project (2017)

A really really hit or really really miss.

[6/10 · 13 April 2019]

Man, what a mixed bag of a movie. I usually need to spoil things of the plot to expose the goodness or badness of it but not this time: basically you got a slice of life of people struggling to survive. That's not inherently a good or bad plot, you just have to work with it in order to make a fine, nuanced piece of work. But because of its nature most reviewers say that the movie is 'empty', which I agree, but not for the same reasons: I think is empty of interesting characters.

The problem, even when could seem not such a major thing, does extend itself to other aspects of the movie. By 'not interesting' I mean one note, stale, wooden. This affects the plot hugely because they behave the EXACT way always, doesn't matter what happens. If the situation is unbearable, if something bad is going around, the characters don't react to the situation: the kid is a spoiled brat, the mother is one of the worst mothers I've ever seen, and that's it. They don't move from there. God, you would think that being so poor, so aimless in life, they would have to face problems and shout to each other at least sometimes. But no, when they are together their personality evaporates, there is no conflict, nothing. She doesn't have a moment of doubt, any remorse, absolutely nothing! I mean, there are a lot of trashy mothers in the world, I'm sure. But, unless you are a psychotic child abuser or a braindead heroin junkie, I think you would have some guilt, some internal struggle of what you're doing to your child. The same goes to the mother's friend. They call themselves a bad word and that's it! Come on! Even the whitest trash ever had a conversation with some depth with her friend once! Nobody is so one note, so empty! ESPECIALLY a mother!! Hello? Besides, do they expect me to believe that such a brainless, unstable person was able to raise a kid , with NO help whatsoever? Even Dafoe, with his excellent performance btw, is one dimensional. He takes care of the building, and that's it! He doesn't evolve, he doesn't show feelings AT ALL. The only moment that does is in the ending, but the movie chickens out before he starts showing and he doesn't have a closure as a character, nor helps the plot in any way. Disappointing.

And that's when the movie really miss. But, for what is worth, when the movie hits, hits. The directing is interesting, the camerawork is well done and helps the sequences to unfold, the setting is subtly established through several scenes which is interesting (like the helicopter or the guys who missed Disneyland) and some moments of the movie are as well subtly charged with subtext- which I won't spoil, you will spot it. I found myself enjoying these elements of the movie. The acting I thought was phenomenal too, I genuinely wanted to kill every character for being so obnoxious, I mean, I ate it up completely and didn't feel like they were acting!

Unfortunately, now that I think about the plot, there were some few misses too. Even for a slice of life plot, the second act in some point felt like a little monotonous, repetitive, like if the movie struggled to flow and was afraid to move on to the next plot point. Moreover, I'm not sure if the ending works at all. It seems a little too open to me. I've already talked about Dafoe, but the last sequence ends a little too abrupt. I might be wrong in that one, maybe it's not bad but I think it could have been better.

Overall a decent 6.2/10

The Void (I) (2016)

Prometheus 2.0

[5/10 · 10 April 2019]

Oh boy, here we go again. Another pretentious, non-sensical, forgettable collage of 80s horror ideas crammed in one another.

Why forgettable? Well because for some directors and writers is so hard to understand that you NEED a interesting cast in your horror movie! These people are so forgettable and bland that it hurts. The worst part is when they drop some random background to the characters, as if they wanted to show how deep these characters are!! But again, they fail to understand what a character needs: DEVELOPMENT AND PERSONALITY. Nah, here you got almost nothing. Some clichés and that's it.

Forgettable and obnoxious as well are the sound design and the cinematography. You got next-level shaky cam (fortunately it's not so often), an AWFUL mixing of sound (you know, turning the music up to 10) and cliched flashed-lightning, as that crap scared people anymore! To be fair, I've seen worse, but this is mediocre at best.

Acting and props are good, these are the only good things I can give the movie credit for. Well, maybe also some horror scenes were well directed.

But oh boy if we dive into the plot. It's there where the movie sinks and drowns. I have to ask why. Why not sticking to a coherent script, maybe one not too complex or anything but well constructed (like the Thing, one of the movies this one tries to rip off) and work around it? But nooo man, we had to make a convoluted plot about a million things that don't add up and let the characters explaining it to the audience. You got everything: demons, skinless people, hooded guys... I got no idea how or why are they in the movie. To be honest, halfway through the movie I was no idea what the hell was going on. So the hooded guys are (people? demons?) in this cult and prevent the people in the hospital from getting out... except when the movie want them to leave. THEN they dissapear. Magically. I mean, they move faster than a DBZ character. What are they? Which logic do they follow?I got no idea. Then when the movie needs to they enter the hospital and proceed to kill'em all. I laughed when that happened. I ask, why didn't they enter early in the movie? They would've killed them all right away. But the funniest thing is that, at the end of the day, all they got is a knife and later on the movie, one of them ended up squashed like clay! No really, are demons so lame?

Then you got the villain. He is the boss of a "cult"? Religion? I don't know. It's established so quickly and developed so poorly that honestly I don't care. As far as I understand, he lost his daughter and he wants her back. Apparently he knows how: by being a god. Yeah that sounds stupid right? But don't worry, in the movie they make it even more stupid by not explaining HOW he plans to make it. You just got to assume that he can... somehow. He attaches demons to people I guess. Sounds silly right? Well be ready to rack your brain in order to figure it out because is so convoluted that it hurts!

And if you wonder what this "void" is... let me tell you: some random flashbacks of a cloudy landscape that is supposed to be... heaven? hell? another dimension?That I don't freaking know. In the end the main characters are in the landscape next to a pyramid. What is that pyramid? HA! I wish I could answer that. I was watching Prometheus all over again!! They pull out a sci-fi setting out of nowhere to justify maybe the most important plot point of all!

And that's the main problem of the movie. You can't take serious the horror elements because you're constantly trying to make sense out of the confusing plot. And that's what really hurts the movie. 4.5/10 for the effort, the acting and the props.

Silent Running (1972)

Well-rounded sci-fi flick with a dose of cuteness.

[7/10 · 5 March 2019]

Over the years this movie has been compared with 2001,basically because Douglas Trumbull, but let me tell you something right off the bat- it shouldn't. These are two vastly different movies, and even when 2001 is superior, this one shouldn't been overlooked. Yes 2001 has a lot of cinematography techniques that made it mind blowing, but the props and the settings in this one are not bad at all. They look very spacious, cluttered with details, and realistic enough. You got of course the typical screens with random symbols passing by and all that Star Trek-ish gibberish, but it's not the focus of the movie and you just gotta roll with it with not too much problems. The effects are cool, yes it suffers from being low budget but you can see the effort putting on the picture so it's cool (better than all that CGI crap). And yes, there is some environmental message going on here. But the movie is bashed for it, and I don't get it. The message is not ham fisted like it seems. Yes, Bruce Dern loves trees and animals and stuff, but to be fair is the only one that does. The rest of the cast look down on him constantly, and the movie doesn't put him like the good guy. In fact, I think him as the bad guy. But unlikeable doesn't mean "bad" character. On the contrary, I really like his character. He is this awkward scientist, devoted to his work and the nature, who at one point of the movie kills the crew in order to preserve "beauty" in the mankind. And this is indeed something morally wrong, mostly because it's explained in the movie that mankind has survived without trees, so they're not needed to survive, but I understand the struggle of the character. He considers environment important, and at the end he even gives his life for a tiny chance of its survival. Another trait I admire about his character is his connection with the drones, which reminds me of Cast Away: they supply him some help and, at the same time, company. There you can see how socially awkward the guy is, connecting deeper with the machines than with the people. The machines resonates with the story too. The way they walk, behave and communicate with each other is warm and cute, and at the end they are the last hope of the plants. This could have been made in a cutesy, manipulative way, but I think the movie is pretty sober about it. And let's talk about Joan Baez. Look people, we all know those early 70s, right? Power to love, peace and trees. And the American folk in that day and age were like that too. But I think there is some quality to the Joan Baez songs in the movie. Like I say, they convey that sense of cuteness and they aren't that ham fisted. In fact most of the movie has no soundtrack, the only time Joan Baez is heard is when we are in the dome or when Bruce Dern is melancholic thinking about his things. So even when the soundtrack could have been better, it's OK.

The writing however has some holes that can't be overlooked either. You'll sometimes have to suspend your disbelief pretty hard. First, I can't understand what they 're doing in Saturn. Why so far away from the Sun (and the Earth)? If they are in some kind of space mission, it would be a lot easier and cheaper to be around Mars, for instance. Or even around Earth for that matter. Why the damaged robot had to die in the end? I can understand he wouldn't be able to help, so what? Couldn't he live without doing anything? What is the logic behind blowing up the domes, except being a plot device so that the crew can die? Overall, I did enjoy the movie. 7.2/10