You know how sometimes you rewatch a
movie and you find your opinion of it has changed? That happens to me
sometimes, even to movies that I've already written reviews for.
While a lot of thought goes into my reviews – and believe me I try
to include my thoughts on every aspect of a film before judging it
here – there are a few times where I've realized that my judgment
was incorrect. There's a couple times where I was too harsh on a
movie and there's also a few times where I was being too generous. So
on this article I'm going to clarify my current thoughts on some
movies that I've reviewed in the past. This isn't me rewriting
history (the original ratings still stand and I still very much have
confidence in my own writing), and these aren't mistakes. Think of
these as updated opinions on films of whom I now think differently.
Let's take a look.
X-Men: First Class (2011); I
gave 3/5, should've given 3.5/5
In
my original review for this flick – the second I ever wrote, by the
way – I called the film “a mixed bag” that was full of plot
holes. While I do acknowledge that there are a bunch of logical
fallicies in First
Class, I don't think
that they are that much of a hindrance to the audience's enjoyment of
it. I mean when it gets to the point where I'm criticizing the fact
that First Class
doesn't fit into the timeline of the other X-Men films, you know I
must be nitpicking. (Because pretty much every X-Men film has that
problem!) The movie still has a lot of fun moments and gripping
action scenes. Don't be afraid to give this one a try.
The Amazing Spider-Man
(2012); I gave 4.5/5, should've given 3/5
What
was I smoking? Yeah, Andrew Garfield was alright, the romance was
good, the special effects were more advanced than the original
trilogy, and the overall tone was less cheesy. But as a whole,
Amazing Spider-Man
is a mess. Instead of an awkward nerdy loser, Peter Parker is now
portrayed as a skateboarding hipster. (I mentioned this in my
original review, but didn't make it clear whether that was good or
bad. While some might prefer this version of Peter, I wouldn't
consider it ideal.) The Lizard sucks, big time. He has pretty much no
motivation for being a bad guy, his plan comes out of nowhere (Peter
discovers it conveniently edited into a video ready to go on Conners'
laptop), and just like most of the Spider-Man movie villains he may
or may not have a split personality disorder. In short, the Lizard is
forgettable. Did anybody else notice that Peter just gives up the
search for his uncle's killer? How about the part where Peter breaks
his promise to a dying Captain Stacy to stay away from his daughter?
Oh yeah, they also sequel-baited the hell out of this. And we all
know how that turned out. Overall, Amazing
Spider-Man isn't a
horrible movie, but I'd take the original (2002) over it any day.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012);
I gave 4/5, should've given 3/5
Bloated:
that's what this movie is. There's so much going on, there's
so many ethical issues debated, and the thing is just too dang long.
Repeated viewings of Dark
Knight Rises really
shows how boring it can be. And I never
thought a movie with Anne Hathaway in a Catwoman outfit could possibly be boring! For a movie
with Batman's nickname in the title, where on earth is Batman? He –
as Batman, not Bruce Wayne – has probably around 30-35 minutes of
screen time in a 165 minute film. The romances come out of nowhere,
the super-prison is so lax that even a child was able to escape it,
and another child was able to figure out that Bruce Wayne was Batman
because... reasons. And worst of all, how did Bruce Wayne make it to
a military quarantined city after being stranded on the other side of
the world so quickly without anyone noticing? Who cares? Trilogy
over.
Iron Man 3 (2013); I gave
4/5, should've given 3.5/5
This movie was
pretty good. Maybe not 4/5 good as I said four years ago, but still
good. The only thing that's changed for me is that the reveal of
who's really behind the Mandarin attacks is a little disappointing.
Nevertheless, Iron Man 3 is remains a pretty fun movie that I
still enjoy.
Monsters University (2013); I
gave 4/5, should've given 3.5/5
Same as above:
the film's good, just not as good as I once made it out to be. The
plot lines aren't terribly original and since the movie is a prequel,
you already know how it's going to end; no matter how hard Mike
Wazowski tries to become a scarer you know he's going to fail.
Despite this though, Monster University's still alright.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
(2014); I gave 2.5/5, should've given 2/5
You
thought the first movie was a mess? Wait until you get a load of this
one. This is where the second Spider-Man series became unworkable,
just as Spider-Man 3
did for the first series seven years earlier. But I would rather
watch that movie than this one because you can at least tell what's
going on. In Amazing
Spider-Man 2 there are
way too many plotlines and they make the series take a turn for the
weird. For example, Peter's dad apparently had a secret hidden
laboratory in an abandoned subway station for some reason. Electro is
basically a cross between the Riddler from Batman
Forever and a Care
Bears villain. When he first becomes Electro the electricity fixes
the gap in his teeth. Seriously. Also, Gwen Stacy is pretty dumb,
always throwing herself into dangerous situations. Her death comes as
no surprise. The events of the ending five minutes could (and should)
have been stretched out and repackaged as the third movie. I
mentioned a lot of these problems in my review, but it just recently
hit me that they really do impede on the viewers' ability to enjoy
the movie and its overall cohesiveness. I was being a little too
charitable.
Project Almanac (2015); I
gave 2.5/5, should've given 2/5
Speaking of
being too charitable... Project what? Not only was this a forgettable
movie, but even by found-footage movie standards this flick barely
had any effort put into it. From what I remember, the characters were
nothing special, just bratty self-centred teenagers willing to
manipulate others to get what they want. And how did the chick not
realize that the main character dude was manipulating past events in
order to score with her? She's a time-traveller too, so how did she
miss putting two and two together? If the dude time travels back to a
time he was at before, then shouldn't there be two of him in that
location at that point in time? How is a time travel machine able to
transport people across vast distances? Why are there so many
unanswered questions in Project Almanac?
Avengers: Age of Ultron
(2015); I gave 4.5/5, should've given 4/5
Before you start
cursing my name and rioting in the streets, just hear me out. Age
of Ultron is good, very good. It's just not 4.5 good. Compare
this to the first Avengers movie from 2012. In retrospect,
that movie was somewhat standard with a very straightforward, no
frills plot, but it deserves a 4.5/5 because it was satisfying to
finally see the culmination of several years worth of movies. Seeing
all the Marvel characters come together, crack jokes, and kick ass
was in itself kickass. Aside from adding a few new characters to the
mix and slightly more nuanced plot details, Age of Ultron
didn't really build upon what the last movie had established. While
Age of Ultron does a lot of things very well, it feels at
times like it's just going through the motions. But I still think
it's good. OK?
Jurassic World (2015); I gave
3.5/5, should've given 2.5/5
How on earth did
this movie become the fourth highest-grossing film of all time?
Remember the first Jurassic Park movie? The suspense, the
terror, the sense of wonder. This movie throws it all out the window
with an extremely predictable plot, tension-free action scenes that
lead right where you think they will, and bored main characters who
aren't impressed with dinosaurs anymore – possibly because instead
of using animatronic dinosaurs for closeups, Jurassic World
settles for CG for every shot. If you think that looks bad, just wait
until you get a load of the ugly colour palette; everything is graded
to blue/grey, making peoples' skin appear very orange-ish. Jurassic World had four writers working on it,
which in most cases results in a jumbled and convoluted end product.
But in this case, the film ends up being just a dull, predictable
rehash.
Straight Outta Compton
(2015); I gave 3.5/5, should've given 4/5
Here's another
movie I should've given more credit to. The casting, music,
directing, and editing were all fantastic and full of energy. Sure,
it plays it safe a lot. Sure, it's idealized and romanticized. But it
still stands as a compelling entry in the musical biopic genre.
Jason Bourne (2016); I gave
2/5, should've given 1.5/5
Dang.
In my original review I called Jason
Bourne “a
semi-competently made film”. Even that was giving this movie too
much credit. Once you've seen this movie, there's no point in ever
seeing it again other than to squint at it even harder just so you
can fail again to make any sense of those unwatchable action scenes!
I forgot to mention that Tommy Lee Jones is in this movie playing the
role of... let's face it, Tommy Lee Jones. He's just there doing his
same grumpy old man thing. Remember when I said that Matt Damon was
“good”? I meant that he was still good at doing action. When it
comes to playing the part of the titular agent, he does nothing to
add to this character's personality thanks to his extremely sparse
dialogue. It's the same problem as with the Bourne
Supremacy and the
Bourne Ultimatum:
there is simply nothing to this character. By now, Jason Bourne isn't
compelling at all. This, in combination with the copy-and-paste plot,
makes for a bafflingly uncreative and underwhelming comeback movie.
It offers nothing that its predecessors didn't. Like I said, there's
just no point.
Suicide Squad
(2016); I gave 2.5/5, should've given 2/5
My
final recommendation for this film remains unchanged. What has
changed is that I now see what the critics mean.
Suicide
Squad
is a mess. From the scattershot tone to the overload of exposition,
plot points that go nowhere (e.g. Katana's sword is never used to
trap the souls of its victims), a jumpy, disjointed narrative, a
bunch of nonsense (e.g. how is the team expected to counter
Superman-level threats when most of its members don't have real
superpowers?), and violence against women presented as humourous
and/or sexy – it's quite clear that there were tons of rewrites and
significant portions of the film left on the cutting room floor. In
some cases this is a good thing; the less we see of Jared Leto's
Joker, the better. And making Enchantress, a member of the team, into
the main bad guy is just lame and disappointing. Though I guess it
does make sense since she's easily the most uncontrollable, craziest,
and least trustworthy member of the team. Dangit Amanda Waller,
everything in this movie is your fault! Why didn't you get in trouble
for this? I'll still commend
Suicide
Squad
for trying something different from the rest of the DC movies, but
there's no denying that the final result is faux-edgy, juvenile, and
not all that great.
