www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode Duncan Jones’s new picture Mute has been released on Netflix to wildly polarised reviews. Jack Howard and I see the film very differently.
I like Mark's acknowledge of "trying to like it " because he's a fan of Duncan Jones. This was the same when Cosmopolis came out a few years back and he really struggled to justify why he liked it given he was hyped over David Cronenberg. I think Jones gets a lot of praise for Moon, but respectfully, that was his only "critically acclaimed" film that ever gets recognised. Remember M. Night Shyamalan? Made a phenomenal first film, a great second film and then started dipping off. Jones has been almost identical, as has Neill Blomkamp.
Man, it bummed me out so much that Blomkamp couldn't pull another hit. For how much I loved D9, I did not care for Elysium or Chappie; I didn't hate them, but found them pretty dull by comparison. After seeing his work with his YT channel 'Oats', I think he's just got more of a mind for short films, because in those are some of the most interesting sci-fi/sci-fa concepts I've seen in a long while.
Agreed. I had such high hopes for Blomkamp after District9 but everything he has made since has disappointed me. I'm glad he never got to make Halo nowHe couldn't make a worse Alien movie than Covenant ...could he?
I had zero idea what Mute was about, so went in blind... I bloody loved it! Sometimes in life there are no explanations for how and why things happen and why people act how they do. We don't know the full depth of bond the Hawkeye and Trapper John characters have. As military doctors, they may have had to endure darker things of humanity, worse than even Trapper's grim voyeuristic tastes But, that's just a sub plot, I think Alexander Skarsgård deserves HUGE applaud for his (99% voiceless!) heartfelt performance
I'd like to say one thing about Shape of Water and Mute. In SOW it is established early on that Hawkins' character has two close friends who understand her very well and are with her throughout the film, while the bartender has one, his girlfriend, who is ripped away from him and he is left on his own to feel his way around a world which doesn't understand him at all. SOW is absolutely the more well-rounded film, this is just something I took away from two portrayals of mute characters.
Women in the 1960s didn't have a voice but it could be argued that neither do people who are unable or unwilling to use technology like Twitter and Facebook today.
I think that it is very powerful film - you could say it's flawed, but i don't think so. I nearly cried at the end, and there is so much going for it that i think people are blind if they can't see it.
Without seeing the film, it seems to me that Mark's not being 'biased' to like it, but rather he's simply got more faith in Duncan Jones (from his last films) and therefore is less willing to write off the movie. Had it been Michael Bay's name on the poster, you'd still have 'wanted' to like the film, but the faith required to look that deep may have been (understandably) lacking. There's nothing wrong with diving deep into a film to find something interesting, but I'm sure there have been lots of 'bad' films by no-name directors who could have also had made films with the same 'stands' deep under the surface, but nobody had enough faith in their vision to bother looking.
I think that it is one of those situations where people have too many expectations, and so don't see what is really there, which was a rich and dark gritty tragic mystery.
I saw Mute when it first hit Netflix and I'm still not sure about it. BUT (yeah - it's a Kermodian "but") it's stayed with me and I'm still thinking about it. I really loved the design, the Berlin setting and above all the audaciousness of the central idea though it made me feel uncomfortable and I felt it was at times incredibly disjointed narratively. As we say here in AU, "good on ya" Netflix & Duncan Jones for putting something out that's got us talking and (for the most part) having intelligent conversations about film. PS: Alexander Skarsgard reminded me of Viggo Mortensen too - not a bad thing at all ;-)
I really liked the film. Had bits that reminded me of la jetee and even dreamy Disney fairytales. The sound was like 80s fantasy such as never ending story and the visuals and futuristic details were not forced and very clever which didn’t distract from the main themes. The child molesting for me was used in an obvious way to show how Paul Rudd was living in a world of monsters trying to be a good parent but we slowly realize he is the biggest monster which is why he kept ignoring his friends problem. It was also because he had a deep male bond with the guy which made him ignore it fo love. the fact it constantly moved between all these things without being didactic is what makes it good. Some people wanted it clearer i think but it shouldn’t make them angry
This film is not as strong as I had hoped, as per other comments, I found the dark story of the acerbic cactus far more interesting than the bartender. He is frustration and desperation to leave Berlin, his twisted relationship with the doctor, who he knows is a creep but is tied to, and his bullying nature contrasted against the love of his daughter. I wish they'd ended the film with him watching the monitor.
The fact that Netflix had the balls to fund a film this audacious in its narrative choices is still utterly baffling to me. It's a film that doesn't pull its punches when depicting extremely touchy subject matter, one that seems to hold nothing but contempt to most of its characters, one that is just so bitter, cold and at times outright nasty that I can see why it would be off putting to most. This is an odd beast, but it's easily the most fascinating movie Netflix has put out so far.
I watched it cos it was on. Felt like a dodgy Netflix made for tv film like The Cloverfield Paradox ie, nearly good. Was surprised to see Duncan Jones name at the end. Zowie I thought, this isn’t a good film
It needed to be a half hour shorter - probably by cutting out the conflict between Paul Rudd and Justin Theroux's characters, or a six-episode TV show.
Jack is quite incorrect of his assessments of the film, and to be honest I find his comments very unfair and disingenuous. I think the opposite issue is going on. Mark doesn't have to justify his liking of the film - he's doesn't need to find reasons to like it because it's very well done. Jack - on the other hand - is deliberately not engaging with the film assuming it's done sloppily when those choices are deliberate. For example - the one scene where Cactus confronts Duck over his actions, only for them to be partying together in the next scene is clearly a deliberate choice. The dissonance is supposed to show their very odd relationship - and challenge the viewer about what their relationship means in a very specific way. If he doesn't like the film, that's ok. He should say it's not his thing, Cyberpunk is a very niche genre and not universal . But it's disingenuous to claim that it's bad.
Mark is not so much "lenient" as fair-minded. He tends to judge films against a reasonable set of expectations rather than holding all films to some impossible gold standard, which I think some other critics are tempted to do. There's no point comparing Police Academy 6: City Under Siege to A Short Film About Killing, either qualitatively or quantitatively - there's completely different films with completely different intentions, goals and effects. Mark may harbour some prejudice (for or against) with regard to certain filmmakers he likes or dislikes, but so what? He's a human being, not a film-criticism machine, and at least he's honest and forthcoming about his tastes.
Here we go...reading William Gibsons comment on the movie it struck me when viewing that his Neuromancer can now be realised. In fact Duncan along with William (writing the screenplay..I know,I know but what a combination eh) one can only ponder what the results wouldve been. You have to realise what an impact reading Neuromancer was, it flavors all through Mute and that's what saddens me, it was simply too dark the only empathy I felt was toward the young child (in reality perhaps the true star) and if one is a fan of Cyberpunk you'll laugh at the irony of that. Mark, it's okay I feel the same way about Duncan so I will say it ... the movie simply didn't work Peace..transmission over
No one should make themselves sit through a film twice, just to hope that it seems better the second time round. If the film didn't work for you on first viewing then there is a problem with it. I liked DJ's first 3 films but almost gave up on this one half way through - I wish I had once I got to the end.
I think it is the most misleading trailer I have seen since Only God Forgives. Having watched this almost straight after The Shape of Water, the main thing that I had an issue with was Alexander Skarsgårds impression of a mute, when compared to Sally Hawkins portrayal she is full of facial expressions, sign language, little movements and you know what she is thinking the whole way through, where as Leo mostly resembles the wooden totem that he has caved towards the end of the movie, he spends the majority of the film looking like someone who just doesn't know what expression they should be pulling, so they choose a blank one. His character doesn't seem fit to survive in the environment he is living in, which for someone who can't speak and who has chosen to not use technology you would expect them to have a plethora of workarounds to get them though a normal day, where Leo appears to be discovering all of these hurdles for the first time. The B plot with 'Cactus Bill' was far more interesting and should have been the main focus of the movie, it would have actually been a really interesting to have Leos story as a sub plot going on in the background making him a coincidental character that we are never sure of his involvement, because he can't talk.
Like anything else, it is not an identity, it is a process. If you criticize, watch critically, then you "are" a critic. It's cynical of you to suggest that people only bother to think about what they watch if somebody bribes them to.
I can't remember a film that disappointed me as much as this one did. It's terrible in just about every way possible and so far below Duncan Jones' standard set by his first two movies that I'm still not sure what went wrong. Easily one of the worst films I've seen in recent times, and it brings me no joy to say this whatsoever.
Jack Howard is easily one of the most articulate film critics around. Should Wittertainment need a second co-host, I would be more than happy to hear his voice.
I got about half way though the movie before giving up on it. It was slow, dull and had some really bad acting. It just couldn't hold my attention or make me engage with, or care about the characters.
I so wanted to love it, it did look good, the old mixed with the futuristic, but I didn't buy into the central relationship at all, all the female characters actually were poorly realized (victims or whores), gay characters too seemed rather old-fashioned and stereotyped, that was hugely disappointing. The Rudd/Theroux fight and then the scene in the car was absolutely baffling, made no sense whatsoever, maybe too many ideas going on and some vital things were lost along the way. I hope Jones bounces back, he has a lot of talent, this just didn't hang together well.
One of the most excruciating, dull, incoherent, poorly written and poorly executed films I've ever sat through. I get that some people like it, which is great, but I found virtually nothing to enjoy in it. If it has stayed with me at all, it has in the way The Exoricst 2 did, in that I can't quite believe just how unfathomably awful it is, how far short it falls of realising its ambition.
1. who cares about this film so much to make a video on it 2. jack howard is the most basic person i have ever seen talk about film - please stop bringing him on here
It's honestly one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my entire life & I say this as no over exaggeration. It's honestly indefensibly abysmal. Honestly atrocious film. Doesn't even deserve one star out of five.
I like Mark's acknowledge of "trying to like it " because he's a fan of Duncan Jones. This was the same when Cosmopolis came out a few years back and he really struggled to justify why he liked it given he was hyped over David Cronenberg. I think Jones gets a lot of praise for Moon, but respectfully, that was his only "critically acclaimed" film that ever gets recognised. Remember M. Night Shyamalan? Made a phenomenal first film, a great second film and then started dipping off. Jones has been almost identical, as has Neill Blomkamp.
And Richard Kelly
Just to be pedantic, The Sixth Sense was not Shyamalan's first film. Also, he has made a comeback in recent years with The Visit and Split.
Man, it bummed me out so much that Blomkamp couldn't pull another hit. For how much I loved D9, I did not care for Elysium or Chappie; I didn't hate them, but found them pretty dull by comparison. After seeing his work with his YT channel 'Oats', I think he's just got more of a mind for short films, because in those are some of the most interesting sci-fi/sci-fa concepts I've seen in a long while.
Neil Blomkamp breaks my heart. District 9 was so, so good.
Agreed. I had such high hopes for Blomkamp after District9 but everything he has made since has disappointed me. I'm glad he never got to make Halo nowHe couldn't make a worse Alien movie than Covenant ...could he?
I had zero idea what Mute was about, so went in blind... I bloody loved it!
Sometimes in life there are no explanations for how and why things happen and why people act how they do. We don't know the full depth of bond the Hawkeye and Trapper John characters have. As military doctors, they may have had to endure darker things of humanity, worse than even Trapper's grim voyeuristic tastes
But, that's just a sub plot, I think Alexander Skarsgård deserves HUGE applaud for his (99% voiceless!) heartfelt performance
I'd like to say one thing about Shape of Water and Mute. In SOW it is established early on that Hawkins' character has two close friends who understand her very well and are with her throughout the film, while the bartender has one, his girlfriend, who is ripped away from him and he is left on his own to feel his way around a world which doesn't understand him at all. SOW is absolutely the more well-rounded film, this is just something I took away from two portrayals of mute characters.
Women in the 1960s didn't have a voice but it could be argued that neither do people who are unable or unwilling to use technology like Twitter and Facebook today.
I think that it is very powerful film - you could say it's flawed, but i don't think so. I nearly cried at the end, and there is so much going for it that i think people are blind if they can't see it.
margosdesarian You and I appear to be in the minority...
Without seeing the film, it seems to me that Mark's not being 'biased' to like it, but rather he's simply got more faith in Duncan Jones (from his last films) and therefore is less willing to write off the movie. Had it been Michael Bay's name on the poster, you'd still have 'wanted' to like the film, but the faith required to look that deep may have been (understandably) lacking. There's nothing wrong with diving deep into a film to find something interesting, but I'm sure there have been lots of 'bad' films by no-name directors who could have also had made films with the same 'stands' deep under the surface, but nobody had enough faith in their vision to bother looking.
When your a massive fan of both these guys and didn’t know they knew each other 😮🤗 love it!
I think that it is one of those situations where people have too many expectations, and so don't see what is really there, which was a rich and dark gritty tragic mystery.
I saw Mute when it first hit Netflix and I'm still not sure about it. BUT (yeah - it's a Kermodian "but") it's stayed with me and I'm still thinking about it. I really loved the design, the Berlin setting and above all the audaciousness of the central idea though it made me feel uncomfortable and I felt it was at times incredibly disjointed narratively.
As we say here in AU, "good on ya" Netflix & Duncan Jones for putting something out that's got us talking and (for the most part) having intelligent conversations about film.
PS: Alexander Skarsgard reminded me of Viggo Mortensen too - not a bad thing at all ;-)
I really liked the film. Had bits that reminded me of la jetee and even dreamy Disney fairytales. The sound was like 80s fantasy such as never ending story and the visuals and futuristic details were not forced and very clever which didn’t distract from the main themes. The child molesting for me was used in an obvious way to show how Paul Rudd was living in a world of monsters trying to be a good parent but we slowly realize he is the biggest monster which is why he kept ignoring his friends problem. It was also because he had a deep male bond with the guy which made him ignore it fo love. the fact it constantly moved between all these things without being didactic is what makes it good. Some people wanted it clearer i think but it shouldn’t make them angry
This film is not as strong as I had hoped, as per other comments,
I found the dark story of the acerbic cactus far more interesting than the bartender. He is frustration and desperation to leave Berlin, his twisted relationship with the doctor, who he knows is a creep but is tied to, and his bullying nature contrasted against the love of his daughter. I wish they'd ended the film with him watching the monitor.
Whoah, was not expected to see Jack here! What a pleasant surprise!
I really liked this.
It's weird that mute and altered carbon came out so close to each other, did they share assets or something?
I adored the film. I just got it. But hey…not for everyone as Mr Jones has already stated publicly many times.
I liked it a lot.
Jack Howard? What are you doing here? I am so confused and delighted at the same time!
Please bring Jack on more of your videos, he is great
The fact that Netflix had the balls to fund a film this audacious in its narrative choices is still utterly baffling to me. It's a film that doesn't pull its punches when depicting extremely touchy subject matter, one that seems to hold nothing but contempt to most of its characters, one that is just so bitter, cold and at times outright nasty that I can see why it would be off putting to most. This is an odd beast, but it's easily the most fascinating movie Netflix has put out so far.
Oh hi jack
Matthew D Gilpin hiya
I watched it cos it was on. Felt like a dodgy Netflix made for tv film like The Cloverfield Paradox ie, nearly good. Was surprised to see Duncan Jones name at the end. Zowie I thought, this isn’t a good film
It certainly wasn't as awful as some made it out to be, but it was so dull
It needed to be a half hour shorter - probably by cutting out the conflict between Paul Rudd and Justin Theroux's characters, or a six-episode TV show.
It was dull to you, not to me...it's all subjective my friend.
The length was fine to me.
You can always, 'fan edit' the film, that's pretty 'easy' these days.
someone is triggered
H.D Beird it looked dull.
Jack is quite incorrect of his assessments of the film, and to be honest I find his comments very unfair and disingenuous.
I think the opposite issue is going on. Mark doesn't have to justify his liking of the film - he's doesn't need to find reasons to like it because it's very well done.
Jack - on the other hand - is deliberately not engaging with the film assuming it's done sloppily when those choices are deliberate. For example - the one scene where Cactus confronts Duck over his actions, only for them to be partying together in the next scene is clearly a deliberate choice. The dissonance is supposed to show their very odd relationship - and challenge the viewer about what their relationship means in a very specific way.
If he doesn't like the film, that's ok. He should say it's not his thing, Cyberpunk is a very niche genre and not universal . But it's disingenuous to claim that it's bad.
I wonder if Gibson was paid for that quote?!
Mark is not so much "lenient" as fair-minded. He tends to judge films against a reasonable set of expectations rather than holding all films to some impossible gold standard, which I think some other critics are tempted to do. There's no point comparing Police Academy 6: City Under Siege to A Short Film About Killing, either qualitatively or quantitatively - there's completely different films with completely different intentions, goals and effects. Mark may harbour some prejudice (for or against) with regard to certain filmmakers he likes or dislikes, but so what? He's a human being, not a film-criticism machine, and at least he's honest and forthcoming about his tastes.
I like that the girlfriend wasn't in the refrigerator
Here we go...reading William Gibsons comment on the movie it struck me when viewing that his Neuromancer can now be realised. In fact Duncan along with William
(writing the screenplay..I know,I know but what a combination eh) one can only ponder what the results wouldve been. You have to realise what an impact reading Neuromancer was, it flavors all through Mute and that's what saddens me, it was simply too dark the only empathy I felt was toward the young child (in reality perhaps the true star) and if one is a fan of Cyberpunk you'll laugh at the irony of that.
Mark, it's okay I feel the same way about Duncan so I will say it ...
the movie simply didn't work
Peace..transmission over
Oh wow, Jack Howard. Das vewy nice.
Haven't seen the film, but *how on earth* did you get through the whole 7 minutes of this without anyone saying "Blade Runner"?
I loved Warcraft. Mute, eh... I still have high hopes for Duncan's next movies
No one should make themselves sit through a film twice, just to hope that it seems better the second time round. If the film didn't work for you on first viewing then there is a problem with it.
I liked DJ's first 3 films but almost gave up on this one half way through - I wish I had once I got to the end.
If I could replace Donald Trump with Mark Kermode and Imelda May would the worlds problems be effectively dealt with ?
I think it is the most misleading trailer I have seen since Only God Forgives.
Having watched this almost straight after The Shape of Water, the main thing that I had an issue with was Alexander Skarsgårds impression of a mute, when compared to Sally Hawkins portrayal she is full of facial expressions, sign language, little movements and you know what she is thinking the whole way through, where as Leo mostly resembles the wooden totem that he has caved towards the end of the movie, he spends the majority of the film looking like someone who just doesn't know what expression they should be pulling, so they choose a blank one. His character doesn't seem fit to survive in the environment he is living in, which for someone who can't speak and who has chosen to not use technology you would expect them to have a plethora of workarounds to get them though a normal day, where Leo appears to be discovering all of these hurdles for the first time.
The B plot with 'Cactus Bill' was far more interesting and should have been the main focus of the movie, it would have actually been a really interesting to have Leos story as a sub plot going on in the background making him a coincidental character that we are never sure of his involvement, because he can't talk.
Can't watch it 'cause of the spoilers. :-(
Now do Altered Carbon
so they both didn't like it then...
Is Jack Howard now a film critic?
Anybody who watches movies is a critic, if they watch them critically.
Popo Bawa, That's the stupidest thing I've read all week. Being a film critic is a job, not a hobby
Like anything else, it is not an identity, it is a process. If you criticize, watch critically, then you "are" a critic. It's cynical of you to suggest that people only bother to think about what they watch if somebody bribes them to.
I can't remember a film that disappointed me as much as this one did. It's terrible in just about every way possible and so far below Duncan Jones' standard set by his first two movies that I'm still not sure what went wrong. Easily one of the worst films I've seen in recent times, and it brings me no joy to say this whatsoever.
I adored it. Honestly one of the best films I’ve seen in recent years.
hi jack
Jack Howard is easily one of the most articulate film critics around. Should Wittertainment need a second co-host, I would be more than happy to hear his voice.
Jack howard makes youtube videos talking about comic book movies and mainstream american films. Calling him a film critic is a disservice to Cinema
'film critic' he makes videos about the most basic films ever made and doesn't 'articulate' anything - hardly a critic
I got about half way though the movie before giving up on it. It was slow, dull and had some really bad acting. It just couldn't hold my attention or make me engage with, or care about the characters.
I so wanted to love it, it did look good, the old mixed with the futuristic, but I didn't buy into the central relationship at all, all the female characters actually were poorly realized (victims or whores), gay characters too seemed rather old-fashioned and stereotyped, that was hugely disappointing. The Rudd/Theroux fight and then the scene in the car was absolutely baffling, made no sense whatsoever, maybe too many ideas going on and some vital things were lost along the way. I hope Jones bounces back, he has a lot of talent, this just didn't hang together well.
i dont think theres a debate here. Its not a good movie.
A tedious, boring, mess of a film. Duncan Jones seems like a very nice guy; I hope he does something better next.
This movie was laughably bad at some points
One of the most excruciating, dull, incoherent, poorly written and poorly executed films I've ever sat through. I get that some people like it, which is great, but I found virtually nothing to enjoy in it. If it has stayed with me at all, it has in the way The Exoricst 2 did, in that I can't quite believe just how unfathomably awful it is, how far short it falls of realising its ambition.
"polarised reviews?" its just really, really, really f***ing boring.
1. who cares about this film so much to make a video on it 2. jack howard is the most basic person i have ever seen talk about film - please stop bringing him on here
It's honestly one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my entire life & I say this as no over exaggeration. It's honestly indefensibly abysmal. Honestly atrocious film. Doesn't even deserve one star out of five.
Yikes dude calm down.
It sucked