fundaquayman

From the first series on South Korea's systemic crime; essentially these were institutionally supported atrocities, to this follow-up sequel-ish second series, the approach in story-telling with this season's episodes doesn't do justice to the various crime committed, and the victims who deserve justice and protection for speaking out.

In my opinion, the producer choosing to approach his own participation in the episodes reminds me of Micheal Moore documentaries from the 90's and early 2000's, and his confrontation with the cohorts and supporters of the perpetrators similarly presents him as THE man on a mission fighting against systemic evil organizations behind these crimes.

All this is fine and effectively engages the audience to see one man trying to uncover the truths that have been ignored or hidden by these "evil organizations" having been operating for decades in broad daylight.

As well intended and deserving of support as the topics presented are, the seriousness of each and every one of these atrocious crimes are revealed and given credibility by victims who appear as interviewees in each episode - some of them speak as they are placed in shades, while others appear front and center facing the camera in studio-like settings. Each of these interviews are shot with multiple cameras so every little jesture, body movement, are edited in to increase emotional engagement. The editing of each episode is full of quick-cuts with sound effects and mood music collage to fit to further pump up the dramatic effects. In the episode on the JMS cult, it is incredible to see the "main-character" victim appear on a HK street to meet with the lead lost-cause crusader so he could break the bad news to her about the progress of the criminal investigation she is given credit as "the first victim who dared to speak out in spite of risks to her safety." This scene just completely ruined the seriousness of the crime the audience has been presented and invested in the hope of seeing due justice served. In all seriousness, would a victim and her crusader really wait for a camera crew with multiple lenses set-up on the street, and then pose perfectly at the camera as they breakdown in tears at the right moment and in the right tempo and beat? Why turn a worthy topic that deserve public attention into melodrama by staging all the interviews as if it is a staged performance?

4/10 and the 4 is for offering an opportunity for victims' voices to be heard.

This is an example of a film starring a decent ensemble cast, with an award-winning director at helm, all of which goes completely south that usually you only see with Netflix productions.

A federal agent is in charge of transporting a witness to a mafia-type case from a small town in Alaska back to the Mainland via Anchorage on a small single-engine 3-seat aircraft. 10 minutes into the film you realize the pilot assigned to fly them to Anchorage isn't legit, and the rest of the dreadful 90-ish minutes deal with their journey that ends up feeling like a first cut to a student film from an online filmmaking course sold on TEMU.

Without revealing too much of that badly written contrived plot, when things start to go wrong, the US Marshall-protagonist (played by Downton Abbey's Michelle Dockery) holds back from panicking and decides to radio for help, and it is only after another 15 minutes of banter-fight-nose dives she remembers she had a phone! REALLY?! The witness played by Topher Grace gets a cutaway reaction-shot of surprise when he sees her whip out the phone -- I thought for 15 minutes that the story must have been set in the 1970s or 80s , BUT TURNS OUT THIS STORY IS SET TO TAKE PLACE in the age of the internet-webs and Smart phones - the day of NOW! Our protagonist acts as if she's was transported back to a time when cellphones doesn't exist and the plane's radio was her only means to call for help! The script has enough gall to have the protagonist just shake off that stupidity by asking herself, "what was I thinking!?" when she picked up the phone and makes a call.

Continuity is a mess with this film to the point it seemed to have been intentionally done so the movie could become a tool for a drinking game after it is sold on home video where you spot the mistake and can point to a friend so they have to down 3 shots of cheap vodka while shouting out "APOCALYPTO!!!"

Mark Wahlberg has been in plenty of good popcorn action flicks as well as forgettable ones, but this FLIGHT RISK is so specially bad it fails even as a money-laundering or insurance claimable piece of crap. Wahlberg plays his villain character with so much of a Mississippi kick you'd think it was either a tribute to DELIVERANCE or he was paying homage to De Niro's Max Cady character from Scorsese's version of CAPE FEAR.

The more I type the more I realize my eyes must have been injured just from having watched this piece of garbage of a film - every movie that gets made takes a miracle and a team to make it happen, but this sad little dumpster fire qualifies as an exception. My suggestion is to not watch it even if it is free and they offer you a gift for viewing it.

I'll skip the plotline summary as you can get that just from seeing the trailer. As a fan of this film, it's interesting to see so many film critics comparing this film to PARASITE when the two films' stories and genre have nothing to do with each other except they're both directed by Bong Joon-Ho. I'm thinking maybe these critics have not seen Bong's earlier great films like MEMORIES OF MURDER, or HOST, and they have only watched PARASITE, SNOWPIERCER and OKJA on NETFLIX when they wrote their reviews after screening MICKEY 17 - fact is, Bong Joon-Ho has shown he is well-versed across multiple genres, and PARASITE's success isn't necessarily his endgame (personal opinion perhaps, MEMORIES OF MURDER (2003) remains his finest work in his 3 decades working as screewriter and director). It would be more relevant for PARASITE to be compared to AMERICAN BEAUTY, while MICKEY 17 as a Sci-Fi satire stands on its own as one of the best films released so far in 2025, and it would be a travesty if this film and Robert Pattinson's performance don't become favorites in next year's Golden Globes and Academy Awards. Given the current state of the world we live in, it is sad to see that the ridiculousness of fictional characters and events within the film are not that far off from what we have been seeing on the news in the first 10 weeks of 2025. Bong Joon-Ho again knocks it out of the park with MICKEY 17 and he makes this film easy to understand for even audiences who only watch Marvel-Disney commercial films. As much as this movie is a Sci-Fi action comedy, the only plot element that probably isn't believable in 2025 is that when corrupt politicians are caught red/orange-handed in the movie, they actually get punished by the law...

While MICKEY 17 can be compared more relevantly with earlier Sci-Fi films like MOON, BLADERUNNER, SILENT RUNNING, or maybe even SOLARIS, and TOTAL RECALL, those equally iconic films touch more heavily on what it means to live and question whether the world now and in the future can allow humanity to exist within us. MICKEY 17 makes a note on the existential questions, but focus more on the dangerous state our world is in right now in Q1 2025...