In Rebel Moon (Part Two): The warrior who leaves marks, Zack Snyder has absolute creative freedom, thanks to Netflix’s interest in having his own franchise. Therefore, the film and its first part are a large-scale experiment to build point by point, its own mythology. The result is a journey through planets, political situations and battle scenarios, whose sole objective is to explore a possible new cinematographic saga. That, without any restrictions and with carte blanche to delve into his often controversial views on the action. But what should benefit Snyder and his premise has resulted in a series of problems of substance and form, common in his work. Only now, they reach a new level of depth and clumsiness.
Both feature films have been criticized for almost the same reasons. So much Rebel Moon (Part One): The Fire Girl, like its sequel, are a collection of platitudes that seem to struggle to stand without references to larger works. Also, due to the abuse of visual and narrative resources, already known in Zack Snyder’s filmography. The truth is that the future saga is incapable of showing all its possibilities, despite the ambition of the staging and the script. Much more, that the original idea of the films – authored by Snyder – loses meaning and solidity in the midst of a visual and narrative disorder, which is almost uncomfortable.
For all of the above, we leave you three reasons why Rebel Moon (Part Two): The Warrior Who Leaves Marks, fails miserably. From a series of errors when recounting what could be the beginning of a large-scale franchise to its excessive attachment to its director’s obsessions. The list covers the problems that usually surround the filmmaker’s works and that, here, are more evident than ever. The biggest problem with the movie.
A series of unnecessary references and winks
Nobody doubts it: every cinematographic work draws on many others and without a doubt, comes from symbols of a greater universe. In other words, there is no film that is completely autonomous and original. However, Zack Snyder abuses the resource in his saga, which inevitably refers to Star Wars not only in the way of presenting your conflict. Also, in the way of deepening your bet, which tries to show a legendary fight between good and evil.
Therefore, a good part of Rebel Moon (Part Two): The warrior who leaves marks, is all too familiar to any science fiction fan. Much more, from the George Lucas franchise. And the references far exceed the simple homage to, on some occasions, become a blatant copy of already known topics. The evil Motherworld, a galactic empire with autocratic overtones, takes excessive elements from that led by Sheev Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid). The same could be said of Admiral Noble (Ed Skrein), who despite lacking the complexity of Anakin/Darth Vader (Hayden Christensen), goes through a more or less similar journey. Even Kora (Sofia Boutella), is a simpler version of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) and his heroic conflict.
But the similarities don’t end there. The agricultural moon of Veldt — the center of the ultimate battle between heroes and their opponents — is very similar to the desert Tatooine. The heroes’ weapons are sabers and laser knives, suspiciously similar to the iconic ones used by the Jedi. However, it is in the central conflict and its way of presenting itself, in which the similarity becomes very evident. For the universe narrated by Zack Snyder, evil lies in the way that power tries to dominate the cosmos and alienate it in a single view of power. A topic that Star Wars poses from complex philosophical symbols that appeal to the Snyders by subtracting depth.
A clumsy film when telling its story
One of the most glaring problems with Rebel Moon (Part Two): The Warrior Who Leaves Marks also lies in its pacing as a film. Especially when trying to include numerous elements from her universe, in the middle of a flat story of a conflict between villains and heroes. Of course, the script by Zack Snyder, Kurt Johnstad and Shay Hatten, based on Snyder’s own idea, points to the well-known path of the hero. So all of his characters, sooner or later, They will reach redemption by leaving behind a turbulent and often violent past.
But Zack Snyder fails to narrate a complex emotional and moral journey. His greatest contribution to the growth of his characters are long explanatory conversations, which explore their lives in a very direct way. The arc of each one seems to depend on that type of information, rather than on real maturity, achieved through achievements and knowledge. In fact, the film misses that the heroes, determined to give their lives to save others, are better developed. Their conflict reaches its highest point, in a long conversation in which everyone explains their past. However, none of that is anything other than information.
The problem repeats itself as the plot tries to concentrate all the facets of the story it tells in a single setting. From the betrayal that allowed the murder of the reigning royal family to Kora’s search for peace. The feeling is that there are a large number of scenes, points to narrate and situations, that never go anywhere. What makes the plot a hollow look at a group of characters with no other purpose than to advance the plot.
A mixture of many things without conclusion
Although both the original film and Rebel Moon (Part Two): The warrior who leaves marks They add up to almost four hours, the script does not conclude its ideas. Or at least the most important ones, which turns the stories into a long prologue to something else that is never shown. Both plots end up being a huge and messy scenario in which dozens of characters and those around them coexist.
All, without an origin and evolution. In another obvious reference to a classic — this time, The 7 samurai by Akira Kurosawa — the film devotes all its interest to the future defense of the moon Veldt. Now, this central stage, which should be the center of a long journey, ends up being the excuse to show the capabilities of its protagonists. That, without the plot really trying to take them to their greatest capabilities. or an emotional redemption, beyond the possibility of dying in battle.
The fact is that the film fails to conclude its ideas, beyond an almost accidental triumph of its characters over their enemies. What, in the end, will make the film clear is only the exploration – messy and unclear –about a mythology that narrates in a superficial way.
