Civil War: Guess Who The Bad Guy Is

Summary

A civil war breaks out in the US but the thing that will kill you is not the air strikes or the bullets but the incredibly obvious message that is being beaten into your face until it’s a pulp.

What shocks me the most about this film is that it was made by a British director, normally it is the American’s that put their politics front and centre and think that the Red vs Blue struggle makes for interesting viewing for those far from their shores, it doesn’t we don’t care, but no here it was a Brit.

Alex Garland as far as I am concerned is a hack, Ex Machina was okay but really nothing to write home about, then came his messy and pretentious foray with Netflix, then Men another statement film that came and went without anyone caring about it and now this. There is talk that he is going to give up directing after this and all I can say is thank God.

Before I get into it, can you guess what the message was, go on I’ll give you a minute though you won’t need it……………

If you guess that the clear Trump stand in right wing American’s are bad for the sheer fact of existing, and that it is as much a comment on how divided America is right now as it is that the right wing should just go away and everything will be better. Believe me I am no fan of Trump, I am as a non-American who has no interest in US politics thought the guy was a bad joke that shows what happens when you underfund your schools, but this strawman argument is beyond ridiculous. The whole point of the film is to be controversial but not in the sense that it is going to take shots at the left and the right, no in the sense that it goes oh look at how extreme the MAGA crowd is boy aren’t they bad, an obvious statement to make, and then takes a victory lap to bask in how profound that message is.

Overall, the film industry will be a better place without Alex Garland in it.

1/5

Pros.

The action is interesting

Cons.

The message is so obvious

It is pretentious and smug

It is incredibly obvious

No one cares about an election that happened 4 years ago now serving as the very obvious inspiration for a film

If you enjoyed this review, then please head over to my Patreon to support me, I offer personalized shoutouts, customised film recommendations to suit your personality and tastes, the ability for you to pick what I review next and full access to my Patreon exclusive game reviews. Check it out!

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Silver Surfer No One Asked For

Written by Luke Barnes

This piece will talk about Marvel and the recent Fantastic Four casting news. A moment before we get into it, I know the female version of the Silver Surfer exists in the comics, minorly, and I know this is not in the main universe but rather an alternative timeline. Neither thing changes my point.

Remember a month or so ago when Bob Iger said that Disney was going to do a pivot and focus a little bit less on the message, or something like that, I remember it and I met it with cautious optimism, but now I am beginning to question whether I was dreaming that and if it ever happened. The news that inspired the current piece is that Julia Garner is playing a female version of the Silver Surfer in the upcoming Fantastic Four film, not gender flipped.

What bothers me about this is not the fact that even with CGI the actor looks nothing like the character from the comics she is far too small for it, but rather that this is what Marvel are leading with. Why couldn’t they just give us the Fantastic Four as they normally are with the regular Silver Surfer and Galactus and then bring her in later. Why did they have to present the news as if she was the Silver Surfer, with a suggested gender flip. I think the answer is obvious.

At the risk of sounding cynical Kevin Feige doesn’t get it, many people thought when Victoria Alonso stepped back the gender/race swaps and the subversions of classic stories would stop, but no. Personally I believe that this is bigger than Alonso and I think it is Feige himself pushing this through because you have to believe Bob Iger doesn’t want this especially with the way it went down online.

I think two things are at play here, firstly Feige or someone high up at Marvel studios didn’t like how male skewing the team was, as they have always been and been popular as, so they decided they needed to add another woman to the cast in order to make sure no one called them an ist or so such like that. Secondly, I think Marvel are aware how this will go down and are trying to hate farm it for attention, with the idea that all publicity is good publicity as even with the casting announcements I have not seen anyone talking about this film online. Maybe they thought they would bring it back in some way, the outrage would get interest. I don’t know but I will say this there is a reason they didn’t lead with the well known and well liked version of the Surfer that fans wanted, they may try and say that they are saving him for something or that oh you’ll get both but I personally think the way they announced it was a clear attempt to hate farm and get attention with an unpopular announcement. It looks like it worked.

If you enjoyed this piece, then please head over to my Patreon to support me, I offer personalized shoutouts, customised film recommendations to suit your personality and tastes, the ability for you to pick what I review next and full access to my Patreon exclusive game reviews. Check it out!

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Drive Away Dolls: Incredibly Sexualised Lesbians

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Two young women, Geraldine Viswanathan and Margaret Qualley, travel across the States to find themselves and deliver a rather compromising package.

I want to preface this review by saying that I have never been a fan of the Cohen Brothers, though their films are lauded I only ever liked Inside Llewyn Davis. Here we only get one half of the directing duo and I have to say that is a deeply average film.

At the risk of offending, this film makes lesbians, both of the lead characters are, out to be sex crazed. Whilst a lot of films have done this with men over the years, so why not women is a valid point, but I would say that it is reductive. In the case of Viswanathan’s character they try and do more with her and develop more of who she is, her backstory and her hopes and dreams, whereas with Qualley’s character sex is all she is. I am a sex positive person and have no issue with any character being sexual but Qualley’s character is nothing more than that. Watch the film and tell me any character detail about her other than she likes sex, go on I’ll wait. She opens the film doing it, travels cross country doing it at every stop and then engages in sex with her friend turned girlfriend at the end of the film. I just think it would have been nice to get to know the character with her clothes on and as more than just a sexual object for the lesbian gaze. I think that the characterisation of the leads will make for an interesting research paper one day.

That said I think this film can get quite political at times, as you would probably expect. I think as with a lot of cases in modern Hollywood it is surface level, its commentary lacks any kind of wit or deeper engagement, its just yes right wing politicians are bad and its up to liberals to punish them and take them down. It is so nuanced that you would have to read copiously on the topic to be able to understand just a tenth of what they are saying, not.

The main pro I will give this film is that it has a good sense of humour. Beanie Feldstein has a decent number of humorous moments which make the film more bearable.

Overall, a paper thin film that struggles to entertain or be relevant.

Pros.

A few funny moment

It is short

Cons.

It over sexualises Qualley’s character

The political commentary is thin

It is boring and fairly predictable

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Ruby Gillman Teenage Kracken: The Tik Tok Generation Through The Lens Of Complete Misunderstanding

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Some creatives from DreamWorks who are all probably approaching middle age decide that they know what kids like based of watching one Tik Tok video once and so make this a film that speaks to only one group of people.

This film is made for terminally online teens the kind you would find with dyed hair and who have a series of different flags and causes in their bio, that is what this film thinks teens are. It cannot and will not understand that teens are more than just this crowd. If you need to see proof of my claims then see Ruby’s group of friends and how they talk and interact it is the most cringe thing you will ever see and feels in no way real or even human, maybe that was the point.

The message of be yourself has been told so many times that I question if it has any meaning anymore, surely kids don’t need to be told this lesson by every animated film that comes out every year in order to learn individualism surely they aren’t that dumb.

I struggled to care about any of the characters as I found them clawing stereotypes of what people view Gen Z and Millennials like, and in that sense I just found them more and more irritating as the film went on to such a point where I debated turning it off a few times and if I hadn’t been watching it for review I probably would have.

Overall, this is what happens when 40-50 year olds try to write something for kids they don’t understand.

1.5/5

Pros.

It is a neat concept

It had about two funny jokes

Cons.

It is cringe

It is mostly painfully unfunny

The characters are awful

It feels like a bargain basement version of Turning Red

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Anyone But You: When In Doubt Throw Yourself In The Harbour

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

After a misunderstanding a pair of people who hate each other must pretend to be a couple in order to not ruin a wedding.

A plot that has been done so many times I have lost count, originality is not one of this films special skills. You know where this is going, they pretend to be a couple then they become a couple and then they break up and then they have a big run to the airport moment reunite and the films over.

I think where this film shines is with the chemistry between the leads Sydney Sweeny and Glen Powell, both of them do a really good job with it and have a strong back and forth and that makes this better than your standard rom-com.

I think a lot of the wider cast are just unnecessary and leave you feeling irritated when they are on screen as the film does nothing to make you care about them even slightly.

Overall, there isn’t much to say about this one, it is on the better side of average.

3/5

Pros.

The chemistry

A few funny jokes

A sweet singing scene

Cons.

It is predictable

The rest of the cast are wasted

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Imaginary: The Opposite Of A World Of Pure Imagination

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A kid, a teddy, and a monster of some sort. Settle down it’s only the same old Blumhouse formula.

Once upon a time Blumhouse used to make some of the best horror films out there, they were your prime cuts of horror meat, but then slowly over time they started abandoning smarter ideas and in many senses adults and started appealing primarily to teens, turning it into slurry that is not even fit for sick animals.

As such this film has a needless teen romance arc as all the best films do. Why can’t the creatives over a Blumhouse see that some of the best horror films of all time have not had teen angst in them, even when they featured teen characters, people don’t want the CW’s writing showing up in their horror films.

Here we have a writer, DeWanda Wise, that has to use her imagination to be able to kill her childhood imaginary friend that has now come for her step daughter. When the film actually gets into the mythology of imaginary friends and talks about how kids go missing all the time as they can’t accept that they aren’t real and so leave home to be with them then the film actually starts to get scary. However, when you see the creature at the end of the film, and see those black eye effects then you are quickly brought out of any fear you felt and feel like you are watching a film made on the cheap, and I do not mean that in a good and charming way.

I will give the film that I liked the twist wherein only the step mom and the little girl could see the bear but before that point in the film we had all just assumed everyone could see it, that was neat and I didn’t see it coming.

Overall, Blumhouse continues a negative trend downwards

Pros.

The twist

The mythology

Cons.

The acting

The angst

The monster

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Dune Part 2: The True Messiah

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Gear up for another trip to Arrakis, or as the locals call it Dune.

I think this is easily the best film of the year so far, I have watched it thrice in cinemas now, and have continued on with the series in book form currently reading God Emperor.

In many ways this film is perfection be it with the effects or the visuals, or in the way the world is so perfectly realised, there are a lot of areas in which this film deserves praise. It takes what worked so well in the first film and builds upon it to give you a perhaps even better experience. I would say that this film is helped by the fact that more happens herein and it feels far more action centric whereas the first was less so, but that is what you get when you needlessly split up a book.

There are a number of changes from the books here so work and some don’t. I liked the ending which sees the Great Houses reject Paul, Timothy Chalamet’s, ascension and as such it will be war. This will make Messiah more interesting as in the books Paul pretty much had firm control over the Empire once the second book came around, this is a good thing as Messiah is far more about political intrigue than action, which after the last two films the general audience may turn their nose up at. The major change I didn’t like was Chani, Zendaya. In the books Chani was Paul’s concubine and love as well as a warrior she believed in him and that was it, here she is angry with him every step of the way and thinks that the Messiah should be one of their own and ignores all the signs Paul is the Messiah to the point of being blind. I understand what they were going for here they wanted to push Frank Herbert’s original message to not trust charismatic leaders, but in execution it just came across as if she was constantly arguing with Paul over everything, this quickly became annoying. In many senses it felt like they needed to update the narrative for a modern audience and inject some girl boss tropes in their and some post-colonial preaching even though this is in space and they could easily have a very different morality to those of us who dwell for abnormal amounts of time on X discussing activism. Also at the end of the film Chani leaves, and I don’t know how they are going to fix that as she needs to have Paul’s kids in Messiah it is an important part of the plot, but I guess that is an issue for another time.

Overall, easily the best science fiction film of the decade and the best film of the year so far.

4.5/5

Pros.

The visuals

The effects

How realised the world is

The cast

The ending

Cons.

Chani and the way they took her character

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Rebel Moon: Stop Giving Zack Snyder Creative Control

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Netflix doubles down on the 21^st century’s most over-hyped director, Zack Snyder.

Zack Snyder can’t seem to string a story together to save his life, maybe he is one of the few directors that works better under tight studio control, as such here we see some sort of rip-off of Star Wars and the Magnificent Seven/Seven Samurai that has no soul or personality. It is Bayian, a term I am coining to refer to the works of Michael Bay, in that it is all style and flash but underneath it is just nothing.

The decision to split this into two parts reeks of Netflix and Zack thinking this was going to be bigger than it was, as it stands it is just a film without an ending, reflecting my earlier point that Snyder can’t put a story together and is an awful writer.

Worse yet Sofia Boutella, who actually is a good actor she just chooses to star in flop after flop as she has the most unlucky agent in Hollywood, clearly has taken inspiration from the Alaqua Cox school of acting and plays her central role with the same look of I am a badass and I’m pissed off for the whole film. There is no attempt to give her character anything more than that, but that can be said also for the other characters who are so thin that you struggle to even call them caricatures.

Then you have the distinct lack of gore, what were they thinking there. Was this supposed to be child friendly, if so who thought that was a good idea considering most of Snyder’s fanbase are angry men, who whilst they may act like children are in fact not.

Overall, a woeful dud for Netflix

1/5

Pros.

It has some good visuals

Cons.

It’s boring

Sofia Boutella is awful

It is far too long

Snyder cannot write

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Damsel: Millie Bobby Brown Proves She Is A One Hit Wonder

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Netflix continues to try and make Millie Bobby Brown a thing, yet she continues to have as much charm as a true British great like Keira Knightly might have in one finger.

So if you needed a better example of what makes a modern Netflix film then look no further than this. Terrible CGI, a ridiculous and insulting girl boss story that makes little to no sense, and a world that feels like Bridgerton with dragons. Oh and it wastes the time of Angela Bassett and Ray Winstone giving them nothing to do and just using them as recognisable faces.

Do we need to go over the definition of a mary sue as it applies to cinematic archetypes? In case we do a mary sue is a character that has no progression and is great at whatever she tries for the fact that she is perfect and infallible. It is reductive girl power nonsense that strips away any humanity, flaws and character that a female lead can have and instead has her be this stoic, inhuman being. What sort of standard does this set for women? Again it is not empowering, they think it is with the idea that it is telling girls that they can be the dragon slayer, but girls already knew that, rather this film says that women have to be tough stoic and not feminine otherwise they are weak and part of the problem. It is incredibly reductive.

So Brown’s character is thrown by the evil male prince into a dragons lair as sacrifice, and even though we are not shown her sword fighting even for a scene in the film she is able to go toe to toe with it whereas a platoon of knights just got destroyed. Again this is cheap, rather than give her character an arc and make her human and fall and have to rise to the occasion the writers can’t be bothered to actually develop the female lead just having her immediately be perfect. It speaks to male writers that want to appear progressive but don’t actually care about their female characters so just use surface level girl boss tropes rather than make Elodie a developed character that you can actually care about.

Moreover, Brown is clearly a graduate of the Alaqua Cox school of acting as rather than try and make Elodie feel more human and real, Brown just plays the character with a constant layer of indignation ready to go on a lecture at any second. Though she is only young as we see her do more and more projects it is becoming clearer that she isn’t a good actor by any means and has clear limitations, maybe she is a one hit wonder, this would make sense why she hasn’t been cast in more Hollywood projects, outside of King Of The Monsters, and is largely now being propped up by Netflix.

Overall, just trash made by an algorithm with no care.

0.5/5

Pros.

It is unintentionally funny at times

Cons.

The CGI

It wastes Angela Bassett and Ray Winstone

The character is poorly written

The girl boss/mary sue qualities

It doesn’t actually update the trope it just recycles it and goes yes we know its bad

The American Society Of Magical: Race Hate The Movie

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A film meant to stand up an archaic racist trope, becomes just as racist.

If a filmmaker made a film wherein the plot line said there was nothing worse than an upset or threatened man of colour and tried to release it in the contemporary market it would be rightly condemned as hugely racist. However, the idiotic idea that you cannot be racist towards white people is tested to the limit here and proven that you actually can. The way this film generalises about white people and uses blatant caricatures, even for the purpose of comedy, is racist there is no other way to describe it. If as I laid out at the beginning the tables where turned this film would not have been made, yet this film sees the light of day despite an almost pathological hatred of white people seeing them all as villains out to oppress the lead.

Racist humour exists of course one only needs to tune into an episode of Family Guy to see an outdated stereotype of some kind, yet there the difference is that the show doesn’t get up on a soapbox and tell you it is progressive and righteous, it knows it said a racist joke and rolls with it rightly or wrongly. Here however the film thinks it can be as racist as it likes towards white people, making them out to be lazy, stupid, violent and incapable of doing anything other than steal the hard work of those they oppress, and then wants to say it is progressive, when it is actually regressive and divisive.

The most stupid thing about this film is that it doesn’t understand the trope it is trying to comment on. Within films about said trope, it is in the title, the character has no agency other than to serve and help the white characters yet the characters here have no agency and only exist to serve, they don’t want to change the status quo. As such what is this film challenging? What is it updating? It is just repeating the trope again but saying ‘oh look guys we can see its wrong’, but do they do anything new with it? Nope, they just have a character point out how messed up the trope is something that everyone with a brain already knew.

Finally the lecture at the end of the film where the main character finally stands up for himself just feels like hate speech, it boils down to white people are bad, again sub out that for any other race and this film wouldn’t be made, but this film seems to have a bee in its bonnet.

Overall, there is a reason that this film has underperformed and been ravaged by critics it is race baiting plain and simple, the creatives clearly have some prejudice towards white people, in my opinion, and wants to inject that into the film seemingly unaware that it will alienate a large part of the audience. A well deserved flop that hopefully kills the careers of those involved with it.

0/5

Pros.

None

Cons.

It is disgustingly racist

It hates its audience

It preaches and lectures rather than try to be entertaining

It is tonally all over the show

It doesn’t actually update the trope it just recycles it and goes yes we know its bad

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer