On April 19, Netflix released the second part of Zack Snyder’s epic saga Rebel Moon, subtitled “The Giver of Scars.” The first film quite rightly received a huge number of angry reviews from viewers and critics because of its blatant derivativeness and general unpretentiousness, so it’s unlikely that anyone seriously had high hopes for the second. However, the tape reaches the viewer and we are ready to tell whether Snyder should wait for a new wave of hate, or maybe the project still improves the situation against the backdrop of what we saw in December.
Pros:
there are hints of character development and exciting action, but nothing more; good special effects; the second half offers solid action instead of empty chatter, although this does not help the situation much
Minuses:
slowmo, a lot of slowmo, it’s literally everywhere; the primitivism of the story is even more striking than in the previous film, where there was room for at least some twists, bizarre creatures, etc.; excessive pathos accompanied by a hysterical soundtrack looks like complete bad taste; no maneuvers for saving irony; general secondary concept and complete absence of surprises; the characters are never developed sufficiently; nightmare dialogues
“Rebel Moon” Part 2: The One That Leaves Scars / Rebel Moon Part 2: The Scargiver
Genre space opera
Director Zack Snyder
Starring Sofia Boutella, Djimon Hounsou, Ed Skrein, Stuart Martin, Anthony Hopkins (voice)
Netflix premiere
Year of manufacture 2024
IMDb website
After the assembly of an all-star team of brave warriors and Cora’s victory over the main contender for the title of “Hair of the Year”, Nazi Admiral Atticus Noble, the company arrived in a long-suffering village on the planet Veldt. Meanwhile, in the best traditions of comic book movies, imperial doctors manage to bring the dashing commander back to life, and as soon as he gets back on his feet, he immediately gives the command to fly to the Veldt.
They are already gathering grain in full swing and preparing to meet the enemy army. But the main thing is that “Giver of Scars” is ready for the second round of confrontation. Therefore, get ready for the most pathetic and epic battle for the harvest in the history of cinema. After the catastrophic epic failure of the first film, it was difficult to hope that the king of slowmo and director’s cuts, Zack Snyder, would take a different approach to the second. This is still the same painfully absurd, excessive in its pathos and frankly secondary movie, in which there are about as many slow-motion frames as there are grains in bags. At the same time, the poor dramaturgy is presented as if a real ancient Greek tragedy had unfolded before us, but tears can appear only through laughter.
You can safely skip the entire first half of the film without a twinge of conscience. The first half hour is generally more reminiscent of commercials for Khlebny Dar vodka or some beer than the prologue of a space opera before the decisive battle. You won’t see such epic shots of earing wheat, agricultural routine in general, and healthy bags of grain stacked in a barn anywhere else.
It is also worth remembering the confessional monologues of the main characters, the backstory of which essentially boils down to one thing: everyone lived happily ever after and knew no grief until a bloodthirsty empire came to his house and burned everything to the ground. Try to guess the first time what visual technique the director uses in these flashbacks.
The apotheosis of the harvest comes with acapella singing from, somewhat unexpectedly, Djimon Hounsou. He didn’t allow himself to do this even in last year’s “Shazam,” a frivolous $100 million Skittles ad in which not a trace remained of Snyder’s gloomy DC universe.
But that universe is already history, and now the director has begun to build a new one, although, given the first two films, his plan looks extremely doubtful. In the text of the review of the previous one, I honestly reported on its many shortcomings, but from the standpoint of evaluation, I was too compromising about Snyder’s creation. Well, after watching the sequel, I must admit that it was in vain.
The essence of the second part of the film, which is entirely devoted to the irreconcilable confrontation between peasants and local Nazis, comes down to a narrative in the spirit of “the empire strikes back.”
It is noticeable that a lot of money was thrown into this indecently loud action, but at the same time they forgot to bring an adequate production idea here, not to mention some of its freshness. That is, to watch for about an hour how one-dimensional dummies are on pathos, to the hysterical soundtrack (attention, read in an unnaturally low timbre) to….r…..o…..o…..o….o….sh …..sh……a……a……a…..t on the salad of unlucky, incapable extras is not particularly interesting.
Each of the seven samurai will have their moment of glory. The warrior Nemesis with two lightsabers at the ready will be remembered for her faded battle, oddly enough, with lightsabers, but in the image of rage towards the enemy she will look uncertain. In this aspect, she can take several lessons from our Ivanna Sakhno. The local Conan the Barbarian will go with an ax against warriors with blasters and, again, oddly enough, will be successful. Peasant Dan will undertake to defeat the admiral himself, however, neither the impressive muscles nor the appearance of Hugh Jackman will help him. A robot with the pleasant, wise voice of Anthony Hopkins will appear out of nowhere. This is a kind of Batman who will first contemplate from the top of the mountain on “Gotham”, after which his cape will beautifully flow in the wind. Both your own version of Furiosa and the AT-AT combat vehicle will appear here.
Among all these useless and uninteresting throwings, the main character Cora will especially stand out. Besides the fact that she decided to compete with the villain for “Hairstyle of the Year”, it was with her participation that the most interesting moments would take place, in particular, a very decent action scene in one of the corridors of the enemy ship, filmed in dynamics (and what, it could have been ?).
Unfortunately, the sporadic hints at something truly exciting are buried in sheer nonsense. “The Giver of Scars” will probably once again top some new Netflix tops and at the same time will collect another armful of negative reviews from disappointed reviewers. Slowmotion of the brain has triumphed over common sense. Zack Snyder has left another scar on the hearts of his ardent fans. Under such circumstances, it definitely would have failed at the box office. But Netflix is truly a no-no.
Conclusion:
“The Giver of Scars” loses in all respects even to the far from outstanding first film. Considering that Snyder is not going to stop, it’s scary to even imagine what awaits us next.
