Change Your Image
rgbfoundry-784-444002
Reviews
The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)
Visually Compelling, but Lacks Depth and Payoff
The visual effects and acting were very good, but the storyline felt really thin. When the movie is over, I feel most viewers will feel that they've wasted time on on a story that could be completely conveyed through a 3 minute movie trailer.
From the science and technical perspective, the movie is very flawed. The station has artificial gravity, presumably because several parts of it are spinning. Apparently that's all it takes to simulate gravity in every direction needed at any give moment.
The physics of water freezing in space. Don't get me started. I felt like I was watching Geostorm (2017). Just an awful representation, but it advanced the story.
When the particle accelerator is make to work, it's through the realization that air was a problem in the reaction. Yes, they're smashing sub-atomic particles and they (just now) realized that atomic particles might interfere with the system. Almost any other "eureka" solution would have been more plausible.
Why is this a story 'Cloverfield' story? Well, because of Mist (2007), I guess. There is about 5 seconds of connection to previous Cloverfield movies. Enjoy each of those seconds, because they're the only reason you tuned in. I wish there were 10 more seconds beneath the clouds.
John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
Soulless Seauel
The sequel is just named "2". As in one more than one. Also, his dog doesn't have a name. That's because his dog doesn't need a name for most of this movie. While I enjoyed seeing Keanu's hard work and training at gun play on the big screen, this movie falls into the shortl ist of movies I have walked out on. I thought the gun play would make the movie worth my time, but the story and tropes they roll out are so juvenile that it's insulting. I won't contribute any spoilers by giving examples, but know that this movie is not worth your time.
The Circle (2017)
A "Black Mirror" look at the future of the Social Silicon Valley
The main character acting isn't bad. Tom Hanks does a great job at creating a lovable character with no obvious villainous undertones. This goes a long way in expressing the movie's key concept that the radical decay of individual privacy is harmless and well intentioned. Basically, there's no obvious evil force driving the company to take over the world.
Emma Watson's character goes through some character changes that I didn't expect. I thought she did a good job of transitioning through the movie.
John Boyega's character could have been played by anyone else. He brought very little to the role. It's fair to say this is a "time-filler" for him between Star Wars movies. I could imaging them shooting his sequences in less than three days.
Patton Oswalt's role was good. He was the more forceful presence at the company, freeing up Tom Hanks to play the likable visionary.
SPOILER ALERT: Knowing that the table is going to be turned and not seeing the outcome isn't a great way to end a movie. I liked how Emma's character turned the employees' culture of unbridled enthusiasm against the C level executives, but this lacked punch as the only pay-off for the movie.
TAKEAWAY: Like a Black Mirror episode, this movie does a good job of showing how privacy can be (and is being) eroded with the consent of the population. I found the idea that "privacy is greed" to be particularly interesting. The concept and message is loud and clear, but it's a long time to sit for such a minimal payoff.