Pains, Grains & Autocracies
Reviewer’s note: The following is a review of the currently released cut of “Rebel Moon – Part Two: The Scargiver” as its own movie. A separate—possibly analytical—review of the film will follow once the director’s cut receives a global release.
Four months after the global release of “Part One: A Child of Fire,” Zack Snyder’s (“Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice,” 2016) dieselpunk dreamscape makes its dazzling return in “Rebel Moon – Part Two: The Scargiver,” which takes off directly where the first film left us. Sofia Boutella reprises the role of Kora, who’s only recently back in the farming village in Veldt from an apparent victory, having slain Admiral Atticus Noble (Ed Skrein; “Mona Lisa and the Blood Moon,” 2022) in the fight against the Imperium on Gondival. The problem? Noble isn’t exactly dead, and the Mothership of the Imperium is still on its way to the moon to collect the grain they ordered from the villagers. It’s time for Kora and her group of allies—General Titus (Djimon Hounsou; “Gran Turismo,” 2023), Nemesis (Bae Doona; “Cloud Atlas,” 2012), Tarak (Staz Nair), Milius (E. Duffy), and Veldt’s own farmer Gunnar (Michiel Huisman; MAX Original “The Flight Attendant,” 2020-2022) to assemble and train the residents of Veldt’s community to fight back, as Jimmy (Anthony Hopkins; HBO’s “Westworld,” 2016-2022) looks on from a distance.
You’d think “Rebel Moon – Part Two: The Scargiver” is a more focused sequel—perhaps a “massive improvement” over its predecessor—which wouldn’t be entirely false; it’s a straightforward, action-packed war drama in the garb of fantastical science fiction, and runs along at a well-oiled pace till the emotionally rousing finale. However, the added context of Snyder’s producing partner and wife, Deborah Snyder, stating the films were originally not split into two parts—but “[…] was one movie” instead—makes using that sentiment as a critique much more debatable. Seen back-to-back, the viewing experience is improved tenfold, and the first film’s narrative is complemented smoothly with the second. Just like “A Child of Fire,” its sequel does feel… stressfully held back, for lack of a better term, but less so than the first installment, which was admittedly hyper-focused on the buildup to the impending conflict of “The Scargiver.”
What it could make viewers feel it misses out on with the absence of Snyder’s unfettered vision for “Rebel Moon,” set to hit Netflix globally this August, with possibly different fanfare, it more than makes up for in its very straightforward full-steam-ahead narrative, set mainly in the Veldt village itself. From the farming-as-negotiation to the defense prep work to a montage of actual weapons handling by different villagers given their own equitable roles to stand against the wrath of the Imperium, Part Two is probably among Snyder’s most linear in terms of storytelling: the underdogs stand against a mostly stacked evil in a high-stakes battle to save their home from destruction. However, its most significant advantage over the first film is the nuggets of emotional resonance the rest of the cast gets here.

Bae Doona’s Nemesis and Hounsou’s General Titus are amongst the most fleshed-out in the film’s long list of characters, grabbing your feelings by the gut when you least expect them. Doona is a revelation—a rather unsurprising fact for viewers and fans of the actor who’ve witnessed her in either her stacked filmography from back in South Korea or “Cloud Atlas” and the Netflix series “Sense8” (2015-2018) by the Wachowski sisters. While the rest of the allies also have tragic pasts that play out competently from a storytelling standpoint, they don’t hit home like Titus or Nemesis. Ed Skrein and Boutella, who both return in their respective roles as Noble and Kora, are absolutely brilliant, and their powerhouse turns pack the punches needed to keep viewers glued to their screens from the first scene to the last.
The biggest draws in the entire film, however, are the drop-dead gorgeous cinematography by Snyder himself and the hyperkinetic action choreography that’s as gritty and rough around the edges as you’d expect from people fighting with a realistic physicality but still boasts the kind of fluid action choreography made to thrill the audience. Tom “Junkie XL” Holkenborg (“Mad Max Fury Road,” 2015) swaps the operatic bombast of Part One with a more dynamic set of sounds that feel more low-key and understated in many places, amping up the immersion from scene to scene till the final almost hour-long battle has the power to take your breath away.
Whether or not Netflix’s gamble paid off for “Rebel Moon – Part Two: The Scargiver” is still unclear. For a streaming giant whose productions include award-winners from bigwig auteurs like Bong-Joon Ho, Martin Scorcese, Andrew Dominik, Jane Campion, Noah Baumbach, David Fincher, Alfonso Cuaron, and Juan Antonio Bayona, it does feel like a wholly puzzling release strategy if you think about it. While this writer would prefer for studios to commit to giving the artists it hires free rein without a weird catch in exchange, it still does feel like the most win-win out of all other scenarios you could imagine—the studio gets four films for the price of two, and can submit two accessible movies out of the four to their algorithm gods. As for the other two, they’re Snyder’s unadulterated vision that will come with their fanfare this summer.
Judged purely by its merits alone, “Rebel Moon – Part Two: The Scargiver” is a visually breathtaking piece of hard-rock dieselpunk that fits closer to the stakes established in the first film. While obviously meant to be watched back to back, “Part Two” stands on its own as a kickass action drama that humanizes its titular rebels, but—strangely, and more importantly—also makes you feel for the numerous nameless villagers who help bring the expansive battle to its inevitable conclusion. Highly recommended for fans of Zack Snyder and for the general audience looking to be entertained with a groovy, breathlessly paced action film.










Great review, I love this positivity. Best film of the year for me. Glad you liked it.
Author
Super duper glad you loved it, my guy! 🙏
Thank you for an interesting review, Ankit! Well, I am impressed by several of the worlds created with Rebel Moon. Especially the way the story blends various cultural influences, such as in the Veldt community. This world seems to be inspired by notions from Nordic honor codes in combination whith pacifist values, which creates a fascinating multi-dimensional social dynamic. But, as I reflect on Gunnar’s arc, particularly his actions in Part One, a thought continues to surface regarding the core human dependency on trust in tightly-knit communities like Veldt. His involvement in Sindri’s battering, even though unintended, represents a significant breach of that trust, something that would fundamentally threaten the social cohesion of a community founded on interdependence for survival. In cultures driven by honor or communal trust, such breaches are not easily overlooked, and the absence of a public reckoning for Gunnar’s actions therefore poses a core contradiction within the narrative.
Communities like Veldt would naturally experience intense difficulty reconciling such a betrayal. It’s hard to imagine that they could still mobilize and unite with the same strength against the Motherworld in Part Two without addressing this breach. Gunnar’s actions, left unresolved, would likely undermine the social glue holding the community together, challenging their motivation to stand up and fight together against their suppressors.
While Gunnar’s sacrifice in Part Two offers a powerful moment of redemption, it feels like an essential step was skipped – the process of restoring balance within the community before granting him a token of honor (the heart of the community). Scrambling together a handful of worriers doesn’t really do the trick here. A more realistic portrayal would have shown Veldt grappling with the breach, perhaps even demanding reparative action, even exile, before Gunnar could fully regain the community’s trust. His ultimate sacrifice could then serve as the final, restorative act – solidifying his redemption not just for Kora but for the entire community.
This interplay of trust, accountability, and redemption is deeply rooted in human nature (which Veldt appears to be), and is of essence in most traditional societies. The omission of these dynamics leaves a gap in the emotional and societal realism of the story. Addressing Gunnar’s breach before his sacrifice would have underscored the need for balance in both personal and collective relationships, making the community’s motivation to fight together in the final battle feel more cohesive and grounded.
I recognize that filmmaking involves numerous constraints, including runtime limitations and the need to maintain narrative focus. However, even a brief scene showing the community’s struggle with Gunnar’s actions could have added significant depth to the story’s exploration of trust and redemption.
These are, of course, personal reflections on what I already see as a fascinating and thought-provoking narrative.