Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Feb 11, 2021
The rule of threes is a pretty solid philosophy. We find things repeated in triplicate satisfying and complete. There is no rule of four, it isn’t a thing. Four is usually one too many… and this was the fear for all Pixar and Toy Story fans when this project was announced, fairly unexpectedly, in 2018. Toy Story 3 was a beautiful and heart-rending end to the saga of Woody, Buzz and co. It was an end. Wasn’t it? Everything worth saying had been said, and it was all tied up in a plastic bow rather perfectly.
Well, Pixar are innovators and pioneers of the highest order, so maybe we should just trust that they know what they are doing (apart from the Cars series). Please don’t ruin it all, is all we asked, with fingers crossed. So many franchises and beloved event movies have had their legacy shat on by one too many sequels. Die Hard, Alien, Star Wars, The Terminator, etc, etc. Isn’t it best to leave well alone and concentrate on new ideas and new directions?
All the usual voice actors, Mr Hanks and Mr Allen, were back on board, with some intriguing additions in guest stars such as Christina Hendricks and Keanu Reeves, as Gabby Gabby and Duke Caboom, respectively. There was also a new director in Josh Cooley, who had been part of the team since story boarding The Incredibles in 2003, and graduating to writer and actor on Inside Out. It’s good to know Pixar look after their own with these kind of opportunities, but was this the right film and series to be making a debut in? A lot of pressure, you would think.
So, firstly, by now we know the entire world breathed a sigh of relief that it wasn’t terrible. Not only wasn’t it terrible, but it was a heck of a lot of fun! I mean, a lot! It went on to win the Oscar for best animated film, and everyone that went on to watch it after its cinema release unanimously says: “Hey, this is much better than I thought… maybe even my second favourite out of the four”. And it is true! It’s not just good enough, it is great. I loved it.
I tend to save my animation for Sundays. I don’t know why, but that feels like the best day to indulge my inner child and sense of sentimental wonder. From minute one I was into this film. As soon as you see and hear your old friends in the toy box, it doesn’t take long to feel at home in this world of talking, walking, feeling, fearing, loving characters. They are so well drawn, in all senses, it is hard to think of animated entities so adored and part of the family. I laughed, I cried, I felt excited and worried and tense and ultimately warmed up with joy. It has it all.
Not to say it merely repeats the best tricks of the first three, it doesn’t. In fact, there are a lot of differences here. It feels a little more mature, like we have all grown up together and have no need to be patronised or expositioned at. It assumes we know these people (yes, I think of them as people, that is why it works) and can leap into their lives at any point. Woody, who is of course the beating heart of the show, has been a friend, a paramour and brother before, but now he is a father figure too, an evolution that reflects life. And these guys know how effective that is going to be.
There is a slight concern regarding his adopted ward, the controversial “Forky”, who seemed a little childish and simplistic in theory… but that becomes a wonderful part of the whole point… no spoilers. I’d understand if the character grated a tiny touch at first; it kinda did with me. But the laughs are there eventually, and some of them are big laughs! Fear not, it works. Not perfect, but it works. Although why it isn’t called “Sporky” I do not know… it is clearly a spork and not a fork. Oh, yes, I know why, it is because that is what Bonnie calls him, and she is a child. Genius. I was wrong.
The plot, such as it is, is an adventure story worthy of Indiana Jones at points, and it moves along at an exciting clip for sure! Gabby Gabby is gloriously sinister, as are her ventriloquist dummy henchmen; Duke Caboom is hilarious and has probably the best light relief moments; but there is also the duo of “Ducky” and “Bunny” to enjoy on a more surreal and perhaps more adult level. Even when you see where it is going, it has the ability to surprise you, which is terrific film-making art in any animation, or anything full stop. Not least, the final 10 minutes, which break the heart in the best way, just as all the previous films have done. The thought of where they leave it brings a lump to my throat even now!
In short. If you haven’t seen it: do. If you have, watch it again as part of a Toy Story marathon and see exactly how different it is from start to finish, and just how many themes and ideas it has covered in its 25 year existence. Bravo Pixar, you did it again!
Well, Pixar are innovators and pioneers of the highest order, so maybe we should just trust that they know what they are doing (apart from the Cars series). Please don’t ruin it all, is all we asked, with fingers crossed. So many franchises and beloved event movies have had their legacy shat on by one too many sequels. Die Hard, Alien, Star Wars, The Terminator, etc, etc. Isn’t it best to leave well alone and concentrate on new ideas and new directions?
All the usual voice actors, Mr Hanks and Mr Allen, were back on board, with some intriguing additions in guest stars such as Christina Hendricks and Keanu Reeves, as Gabby Gabby and Duke Caboom, respectively. There was also a new director in Josh Cooley, who had been part of the team since story boarding The Incredibles in 2003, and graduating to writer and actor on Inside Out. It’s good to know Pixar look after their own with these kind of opportunities, but was this the right film and series to be making a debut in? A lot of pressure, you would think.
So, firstly, by now we know the entire world breathed a sigh of relief that it wasn’t terrible. Not only wasn’t it terrible, but it was a heck of a lot of fun! I mean, a lot! It went on to win the Oscar for best animated film, and everyone that went on to watch it after its cinema release unanimously says: “Hey, this is much better than I thought… maybe even my second favourite out of the four”. And it is true! It’s not just good enough, it is great. I loved it.
I tend to save my animation for Sundays. I don’t know why, but that feels like the best day to indulge my inner child and sense of sentimental wonder. From minute one I was into this film. As soon as you see and hear your old friends in the toy box, it doesn’t take long to feel at home in this world of talking, walking, feeling, fearing, loving characters. They are so well drawn, in all senses, it is hard to think of animated entities so adored and part of the family. I laughed, I cried, I felt excited and worried and tense and ultimately warmed up with joy. It has it all.
Not to say it merely repeats the best tricks of the first three, it doesn’t. In fact, there are a lot of differences here. It feels a little more mature, like we have all grown up together and have no need to be patronised or expositioned at. It assumes we know these people (yes, I think of them as people, that is why it works) and can leap into their lives at any point. Woody, who is of course the beating heart of the show, has been a friend, a paramour and brother before, but now he is a father figure too, an evolution that reflects life. And these guys know how effective that is going to be.
There is a slight concern regarding his adopted ward, the controversial “Forky”, who seemed a little childish and simplistic in theory… but that becomes a wonderful part of the whole point… no spoilers. I’d understand if the character grated a tiny touch at first; it kinda did with me. But the laughs are there eventually, and some of them are big laughs! Fear not, it works. Not perfect, but it works. Although why it isn’t called “Sporky” I do not know… it is clearly a spork and not a fork. Oh, yes, I know why, it is because that is what Bonnie calls him, and she is a child. Genius. I was wrong.
The plot, such as it is, is an adventure story worthy of Indiana Jones at points, and it moves along at an exciting clip for sure! Gabby Gabby is gloriously sinister, as are her ventriloquist dummy henchmen; Duke Caboom is hilarious and has probably the best light relief moments; but there is also the duo of “Ducky” and “Bunny” to enjoy on a more surreal and perhaps more adult level. Even when you see where it is going, it has the ability to surprise you, which is terrific film-making art in any animation, or anything full stop. Not least, the final 10 minutes, which break the heart in the best way, just as all the previous films have done. The thought of where they leave it brings a lump to my throat even now!
In short. If you haven’t seen it: do. If you have, watch it again as part of a Toy Story marathon and see exactly how different it is from start to finish, and just how many themes and ideas it has covered in its 25 year existence. Bravo Pixar, you did it again!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I have put off writing this review because I honestly didn't know what, or more precisely how to sum up my feelings about this movie. That's not a typo at the top. I'm giving this one star, and honestly I nearly didn't even give it that.
Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.
It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.
The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.
Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.
Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.
I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.
While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.
Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.
When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.
What you should do
You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.
Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.
It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.
The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.
Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.
Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.
I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.
While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.
Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.
When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.
What you should do
You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Fallout 76 in Video Games
Feb 27, 2019 (Updated Feb 27, 2019)
A Grotesque Atrocity of Modern Gaming and an Abhorrent Insult to it's Audience
When Fallout 76 was announced last summer, I was initially intrigued. Not knowing anything about it, I was surprised that we were getting this before Starfield, (which wasn't announced at the time but was heavily rumoured,) or the next entry in the Elder Scrolls series, but I hoped it would be on par with the Fallout series last fantastic interim game; New Vegas. Then at Bethesda's E3 conference, we were given the bad news that this was going to be an always online experience with an open world online hub and some light PvP elements.
Fast forward to November 2018 and the game launches to hugely negative reviews. The majority of online reviewers are pounding the thing into the ground and criticising the barrage of issues present in the game. Connection issues, sub par graphics, a vast assortment of glitches, a distinct lack of human NPC's, weird lighting and pop in and so on and so forth. I am quite happily playing through Red Dead Redemption 2 at this point and leaving Fallout 76 indefinitely on the backburner. The following week, the game is on sale for half of it's RRP, then as the weeks go on the price continues to drop.
Then, at the start of February, I am looking for a new game to stick my teeth into and I see a pre-owned copy of Fallout 76 on sale for only 20 quid. I think to myself, what the hell and give it a go. I had heard that a few patches had been put out to fix various issues and so I thought how bad can it be?
I have been playing video games for the last 20 years and I don't think that I have ever seen a more egregious assault on my principles as a consumer. There isn't even a game here.
If you have played any of the other Fallout games since 3, you will know that you suffer through the more grindy RPG elements of the game because the progression mechanics are married well enough with the games other systems that they aren't too noticeable or invasive. The characters, the locations, the quests and the story elements make up for the lacking gameplay and overall the games are enjoyable enough that the dated gameplay systems usually aren't penalised too hard in reviews.
Well imagine any of the other previous Fallout games, but with all of the reasons to play through it that I mentioned above stripped away, leaving only the annoying grindy bullshit that you normally put up with. Except here, there is simply no reason to put up with it.
This is the realisation that I came to last night after putting about 7 hours into the game and I decided to switch it off and never pick it up again.
There is no plot, there are no characters, there is absolutely nothing to see that you haven't already seen in previous Fallout games with more meat to them and there is simply no reason to play this game.
If past Fallout games are a big meaty, juicy leg of lamb, then this is nothing but the dry bone that is left after all of the good stuff has been ripped away.
This is nothing but a quick cash grab. I'm not even talking specifically about the disgusting micro-transactions present in the game such as making players pay £10+ to change the colour of their power armour. No, I'm just talking about the game as a whole as there is absolutely no other merit to it or reason for it to exist or be played other than to make Bethesda some easy money.
This thing shouldn't exist and the fact that it does is a huge slap on the face to the consumer and it pretty much encapsulates everything that is wrong with the mind-set of modern publishers. This game should be boycotted and if you have to pick it up out of morbid curiosity, do what I did and buy it used.
I have heard a few industry experts say that this could be the game that ends Bethesda, the final nail in the coffin after the let-downs of Fallout 4 and ESO. Although don't want this to happen as I never like to see a gaming company go out of business, to be honest I can't say that they wouldn't deserve it for the below the belt bullshit that they are trying to pull on their audience. As a consumer and a fan of this franchise as well as the studio that produced it, I feel betrayed on a personal level and it really is going to take something extraordinary to put them back in my good graces and the good graces of their audience.
The Witcher 3 came out 4 years ago this year and it still looks and plays better than anything Bethesda studios has developed, (and I'm not even a big fan of The Witcher.) Bethesda really needs to pull their finger out if they want to compete with their peers going forwards. Starfield better be running on a brank new slick engine and contain story and gameplay elements that are nothing short of spectacular if they are to redeem themselves from this disaster.
I was hesitant to score this a 1/10, as it is not the worst game of the generation, however in the context of the rest of the series and the motive behind this particular sorry excuse for an entry in the series, it is such an insult that my conscience would not let me award it as anything more than the lowest possible score.
Fast forward to November 2018 and the game launches to hugely negative reviews. The majority of online reviewers are pounding the thing into the ground and criticising the barrage of issues present in the game. Connection issues, sub par graphics, a vast assortment of glitches, a distinct lack of human NPC's, weird lighting and pop in and so on and so forth. I am quite happily playing through Red Dead Redemption 2 at this point and leaving Fallout 76 indefinitely on the backburner. The following week, the game is on sale for half of it's RRP, then as the weeks go on the price continues to drop.
Then, at the start of February, I am looking for a new game to stick my teeth into and I see a pre-owned copy of Fallout 76 on sale for only 20 quid. I think to myself, what the hell and give it a go. I had heard that a few patches had been put out to fix various issues and so I thought how bad can it be?
I have been playing video games for the last 20 years and I don't think that I have ever seen a more egregious assault on my principles as a consumer. There isn't even a game here.
If you have played any of the other Fallout games since 3, you will know that you suffer through the more grindy RPG elements of the game because the progression mechanics are married well enough with the games other systems that they aren't too noticeable or invasive. The characters, the locations, the quests and the story elements make up for the lacking gameplay and overall the games are enjoyable enough that the dated gameplay systems usually aren't penalised too hard in reviews.
Well imagine any of the other previous Fallout games, but with all of the reasons to play through it that I mentioned above stripped away, leaving only the annoying grindy bullshit that you normally put up with. Except here, there is simply no reason to put up with it.
This is the realisation that I came to last night after putting about 7 hours into the game and I decided to switch it off and never pick it up again.
There is no plot, there are no characters, there is absolutely nothing to see that you haven't already seen in previous Fallout games with more meat to them and there is simply no reason to play this game.
If past Fallout games are a big meaty, juicy leg of lamb, then this is nothing but the dry bone that is left after all of the good stuff has been ripped away.
This is nothing but a quick cash grab. I'm not even talking specifically about the disgusting micro-transactions present in the game such as making players pay £10+ to change the colour of their power armour. No, I'm just talking about the game as a whole as there is absolutely no other merit to it or reason for it to exist or be played other than to make Bethesda some easy money.
This thing shouldn't exist and the fact that it does is a huge slap on the face to the consumer and it pretty much encapsulates everything that is wrong with the mind-set of modern publishers. This game should be boycotted and if you have to pick it up out of morbid curiosity, do what I did and buy it used.
I have heard a few industry experts say that this could be the game that ends Bethesda, the final nail in the coffin after the let-downs of Fallout 4 and ESO. Although don't want this to happen as I never like to see a gaming company go out of business, to be honest I can't say that they wouldn't deserve it for the below the belt bullshit that they are trying to pull on their audience. As a consumer and a fan of this franchise as well as the studio that produced it, I feel betrayed on a personal level and it really is going to take something extraordinary to put them back in my good graces and the good graces of their audience.
The Witcher 3 came out 4 years ago this year and it still looks and plays better than anything Bethesda studios has developed, (and I'm not even a big fan of The Witcher.) Bethesda really needs to pull their finger out if they want to compete with their peers going forwards. Starfield better be running on a brank new slick engine and contain story and gameplay elements that are nothing short of spectacular if they are to redeem themselves from this disaster.
I was hesitant to score this a 1/10, as it is not the worst game of the generation, however in the context of the rest of the series and the motive behind this particular sorry excuse for an entry in the series, it is such an insult that my conscience would not let me award it as anything more than the lowest possible score.
Tyler Fletcher (8 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 14, 2020
Character development (1 more)
Forgettable story
Another Live-Action Disney Adaption Bomb
Contains spoilers, click to show
What is it about fantasy novels that makes them so difficult to translate effectively to the silver screen? It’s not impossible – J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series and Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings adaptations are proof that it can be done. More often than not, however, the result is as limp and truncated as Kenneth Branagh’s Artemis Fowl – a few standout moments set adrift in a sea of underdeveloped characters, incomplete backstory elements, and abbreviated world building. Although the problem lies primarily in the difficulties associated with condensing an epic tale into a short-ish movie, the lack of elegance with which that is accomplished makes Artemis Fowl a failure for anyone hoping for the next great fantasy film.
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Why is everyone not raving about this movie?
Imagine a ménage à trois of Agatha Christie, Alfred Hitchcock and Quentin Tarantino at the Overlook Hotel with a banging 60’s soundtrack. Got that unpleasant vision in your mind? Good! You’re halfway there to getting the feel of “Bad Times at the El Royale”. And they really are bad times!
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
Christina Haynes (148 KP) rated Wonder Woman: Warbringer in Books
Feb 10, 2018
WONDER WOMAN - WARBRINGER by LEIGH BARDUGO
Contains spoilers, click to show
Wonder Woman also known as Diana Prince is an Amazon warrior destined to save to world and to later become a member of the Justice League.
But before that, like every story, she had a beginning and Leigh Bardugo gives her a just that.
The beginning of the book and the start of Diana’s story lies her home, Themyscira. Located in the Aegean Sea - Greece. Legend has it that the Amazons were given the island by the Gods after they freed themselves and fought Ares after being enslaved. But that’s just one version. Alike with most stories, there is more than one tale, as most myths and legends are like stories. Like the game we all played at school, Chinese whispers where we whispered something to the person next to us and they did the same till the last person said something like “I eat orange peel and make shoes out of it” when you actually said “I’m hungry and I want a cup of tea”
But back to the book, Princess Diana doesn’t feel she is an Amazon truly. Yes, she was born on the island (although she was actually made out of clay and blessed by the Gods to come to life) and is immortal like the other Amazons. She did not fight and die heroically in a battle like every other Amazon warrior did including her mother Queen Hippolyta.
Because of this Diana is teased daily by Amazon warrior Tek who is basically one of the strongest Amazon warriors and also the bravest. Diana believes that if she wins the race at the Nemeseian games that the Amazons compete in she will be able to show them she is both brave and strong. This would also impress her mother and obviously Tek and then she might just stop being so mean to Diana.
However whilst she is running in the race she sees a boat sinking and hears a stream, from a girl. Although the Amazons are used to seeing this sort of thing happen, along with plane crashes etc. Something stops Diana enough to turn around, run and jump into the sea below her and save the girl. Alia.
Themyscira, as we all know, is a secret island, a place where only the Gods and Amazons know about. Again we know about it from stories and legends, we don’t know exactly where it is. Say it’s like living in a snow globe, except you can’t see inside it. Basically when the ship started to sink the crew and passengers onboard had no idea what so ever that they were next to this mysterious paradise island.
Diana saves Alia and brings her to shore leaving her in a cave till she can come back and help take her back to land. Diana needs to head back to the race in case someone sees she is missing, and being the Princess she needs to be there by the Queen's side to congratulate the winner seeing as Diana clearly hasn’t won.
Back with her mother, they congratulate the winner and then enjoy the feast laid out in front of them. Not long after her best friend Mauve gets ill - which I might add, no-one ever does! The island also starts to move like there is an earthquake happening - which again does happen, ever!
The Amazons start to evacuate the island and head of to see the Oracle. Diana runs as fast as she can to get to see the Oracle before her mother and Tek get there first and find out that she has saved Alia.
Because the island is a mystery and they have no contact with the outside world, they aren’t allowed to save anyone and interfere with the mortal world. That means they can’t bring anyone to the island or the Amazon could be banished from Themyscira.
Once Diana reaches the Oracle and after she has got through the normal routine of giving something to the Oracle and listening to the riddle instead of answers, she soon learns that Aila is a Warbringer, a descendant of Helen of Troy. Being a Warbringer entails having war in your blood. All wars have been caused by a Warbringer and Alia is the next one.
“When a Warbringer is born, destruction is inevitable. One has been the catalyst for every great conflict in the World of Man. With the coming of the new moon, Alia’s powers will reach their apex, and war will come. Unless she dies before then.” - Oracle to Diana pg 43.
Diana then asks the Oracle three questions;
1. How do I save Themyscira?
2. How do I save Alia’s life?
3. How do I save everyone
To which the Oracle's answers;
1. Do nothing
2. You must not
3. “The Warbringer must reach the spring at Therapne before the sun sets on the first day of Hekatombaion. Where Helen rests, the Warbringer may be purified, purged of the taint of death that has stained her line from its beginning. There may her power be leashed and never passed to another.”
So from then Diana and Alia go in search for the spring, it takes a lot of convincing Alia but once convinced they begin their journey. Although it’s not that straightforward. They do encounter some enemies, friends and new places after all. This is where the wild journey that Leigh Bardugo creates.
You much like our hero Wonder Woman experience Diana Prince in a new world, still staying the same person only so much cooler than before. She soon learns that she has always had what it takes to be an Amazon and that man is not quite what her mother and the other Amazons taught her, not all are bad and wish for war. Some are exactly like Diana and soon become great friends and allies to her.
The first book in a series of four called DC Icons by Leigh Bardugo, Marie Lu, Sarah J Maas, and Matt de la Pena. This series is definitely going to be amazing.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Marie Lu: Batman - Nightwalker (Jan 18)
Sarah J Maas: Catwoman - Soulstealer (2018)
Matt de la Pena: Superman - ? (2019)
Love, Christina ?
But before that, like every story, she had a beginning and Leigh Bardugo gives her a just that.
The beginning of the book and the start of Diana’s story lies her home, Themyscira. Located in the Aegean Sea - Greece. Legend has it that the Amazons were given the island by the Gods after they freed themselves and fought Ares after being enslaved. But that’s just one version. Alike with most stories, there is more than one tale, as most myths and legends are like stories. Like the game we all played at school, Chinese whispers where we whispered something to the person next to us and they did the same till the last person said something like “I eat orange peel and make shoes out of it” when you actually said “I’m hungry and I want a cup of tea”
But back to the book, Princess Diana doesn’t feel she is an Amazon truly. Yes, she was born on the island (although she was actually made out of clay and blessed by the Gods to come to life) and is immortal like the other Amazons. She did not fight and die heroically in a battle like every other Amazon warrior did including her mother Queen Hippolyta.
Because of this Diana is teased daily by Amazon warrior Tek who is basically one of the strongest Amazon warriors and also the bravest. Diana believes that if she wins the race at the Nemeseian games that the Amazons compete in she will be able to show them she is both brave and strong. This would also impress her mother and obviously Tek and then she might just stop being so mean to Diana.
However whilst she is running in the race she sees a boat sinking and hears a stream, from a girl. Although the Amazons are used to seeing this sort of thing happen, along with plane crashes etc. Something stops Diana enough to turn around, run and jump into the sea below her and save the girl. Alia.
Themyscira, as we all know, is a secret island, a place where only the Gods and Amazons know about. Again we know about it from stories and legends, we don’t know exactly where it is. Say it’s like living in a snow globe, except you can’t see inside it. Basically when the ship started to sink the crew and passengers onboard had no idea what so ever that they were next to this mysterious paradise island.
Diana saves Alia and brings her to shore leaving her in a cave till she can come back and help take her back to land. Diana needs to head back to the race in case someone sees she is missing, and being the Princess she needs to be there by the Queen's side to congratulate the winner seeing as Diana clearly hasn’t won.
Back with her mother, they congratulate the winner and then enjoy the feast laid out in front of them. Not long after her best friend Mauve gets ill - which I might add, no-one ever does! The island also starts to move like there is an earthquake happening - which again does happen, ever!
The Amazons start to evacuate the island and head of to see the Oracle. Diana runs as fast as she can to get to see the Oracle before her mother and Tek get there first and find out that she has saved Alia.
Because the island is a mystery and they have no contact with the outside world, they aren’t allowed to save anyone and interfere with the mortal world. That means they can’t bring anyone to the island or the Amazon could be banished from Themyscira.
Once Diana reaches the Oracle and after she has got through the normal routine of giving something to the Oracle and listening to the riddle instead of answers, she soon learns that Aila is a Warbringer, a descendant of Helen of Troy. Being a Warbringer entails having war in your blood. All wars have been caused by a Warbringer and Alia is the next one.
“When a Warbringer is born, destruction is inevitable. One has been the catalyst for every great conflict in the World of Man. With the coming of the new moon, Alia’s powers will reach their apex, and war will come. Unless she dies before then.” - Oracle to Diana pg 43.
Diana then asks the Oracle three questions;
1. How do I save Themyscira?
2. How do I save Alia’s life?
3. How do I save everyone
To which the Oracle's answers;
1. Do nothing
2. You must not
3. “The Warbringer must reach the spring at Therapne before the sun sets on the first day of Hekatombaion. Where Helen rests, the Warbringer may be purified, purged of the taint of death that has stained her line from its beginning. There may her power be leashed and never passed to another.”
So from then Diana and Alia go in search for the spring, it takes a lot of convincing Alia but once convinced they begin their journey. Although it’s not that straightforward. They do encounter some enemies, friends and new places after all. This is where the wild journey that Leigh Bardugo creates.
You much like our hero Wonder Woman experience Diana Prince in a new world, still staying the same person only so much cooler than before. She soon learns that she has always had what it takes to be an Amazon and that man is not quite what her mother and the other Amazons taught her, not all are bad and wish for war. Some are exactly like Diana and soon become great friends and allies to her.
The first book in a series of four called DC Icons by Leigh Bardugo, Marie Lu, Sarah J Maas, and Matt de la Pena. This series is definitely going to be amazing.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Marie Lu: Batman - Nightwalker (Jan 18)
Sarah J Maas: Catwoman - Soulstealer (2018)
Matt de la Pena: Superman - ? (2019)
Love, Christina ?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
I'd managed to see the Terminator and T2 in a double bill at the cinema and was shocked to discover I hadn't seen the first one... I really thought I had! Retro films on the big screen are amazing and I need to find the person I need to bribe to get some of my favourites shown.
Dani is working hard to help support her family, she's happy and carefree living with her father, brother and dog, Taco. But today is going to change her life forever.
Grace drops into the world violently, her mission is to protect Dani from a machine sent back to kill her. It's a familiar story, but the Rev-9's aren't like the Terminators, they're relentless and nearly indestructible. Grace and Dani find some unexpected back-up when Sarah Connor joins the hunt, aiding their escape and leading them to another ally for their mission.
Straight off the bat I want to say I loved this film, I'm going to compare it to 2018's Halloween. Neither franchise is something I'm an expert in but these new incarnations to me feel quite respectful to the originals and manage to give us a successful modern take. They both create a homage of things that came before them, and I like that.
The film opens in a great way with the interview tape of Sarah Connor and I thought it was really clever to mix it with consistent effects onto the studio logos/trailers. I was also impressed with the flashback scene of Sarah and John... I genuinely thought I'd missed something from the previous films because I hadn't seen this footage. It was in fact done with a body double and some CGI from what I've read. The quality of the effects in this bit were amazing and I couldn't tell that it wasn't actual footage, it really threw me for a loop.
Our original characters have both developed since their outing in T2. Sarah is much more purposeful but I have to wonder what she was doing between the times she recounts during the film. The Terminator has managed to adapt to his own sort of "human" life, which again, looks like it's got a few holes in it, but neither case really had me pondering until after the film. Linda Hamilton gives a relaxed kick-ass action performance, Sarah has clearly honed her skills and has little emotion apart from hatred coursing through her veins when she's on a mission, it gave a satisfying little lift to things for me. I couldn't help but believe her attitude to everything, still a little bit of the crazy about her but her determination to keep the machines from rising gives her laser focus.
The Terminator, now going by the name Carl is left to do his own thing after completing his mission. I don't know how I feel about this, would there not have been programming beyond his original mission? Anyway, I can't go down that rabbit hole. I thought Arnie's performance was really good, he's still got that "unintentionally" funny thing down well and the chemistry between him and Hamilton really shone through. He's also done well to get Carl to be quite natural while still being a giant robot, had he played it human I don't think I'd have been so onboard... though I don't know how I felt about his new career.
Having the enhanced human character of Grace stopped the sequences from being too flat. With the emotionless side of things previously it was difficult to engage with all the scenes. Mackenzie Davis gets to do the Terminator acting while still being human, you get the human panic and the machine reacting and the blend works well. Her relationship with Dani is a nice one to follow and getting to see her backstory in flashbacks... wait, flashforwards... really added to it all.
Sadly I was disappointed with Dani in general, she's just kind of dragged along with everything and even though she was essentially our Sarah Connor of this film there's very little happening with her. Her character doesn't have enough substance, she doesn't have enough in her to play with the big boys around her. Dani is also confusing in the future story for several reasons, including issues with time travel which I'm not even going to get into.
Overall the effects were very good. The way the Rev-9 movies is unnatural and enthralling to watch and Gabriel Luna's performance was impressive when you think about how he'd have to act and react to some of the more sci-fi moments. The effects weren't great throughout though and in the underwater scene with Arnie and the Rev-9 I was frowning slightly at the screen. The whole thing had a rather misty feel to it and was much more distracting than you'd think.
The other thing I feel is worth mentioning is that there are some odd choices with slow-motion shots. I couldn't see any correlation between the shots and why they'd been chosen for this effect, some happened close together and others happened out on their own and hardly any fit naturally into the scenes. The only one that felt right was Grace sizing up her shot early on, it showed us one of her abilities and that worked well, but after that they felt more like they were trying to show off more than actually picking spots that would have any impact.
Dark Fate has a lot of nice little nods back to the originals and that made for a satisfying watch. There's subtle humour and surprisingly some emotional scenes too, I came out of this and felt really content having seen it. Despite my quibbles, or which I now realise there were many, I really enjoyed this film.
What you should do
It's definitely worth a watch, it's some good mindless action and I think it's a good follow on to the original two films.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some super robot enhancements wouldn't go amiss.
Dani is working hard to help support her family, she's happy and carefree living with her father, brother and dog, Taco. But today is going to change her life forever.
Grace drops into the world violently, her mission is to protect Dani from a machine sent back to kill her. It's a familiar story, but the Rev-9's aren't like the Terminators, they're relentless and nearly indestructible. Grace and Dani find some unexpected back-up when Sarah Connor joins the hunt, aiding their escape and leading them to another ally for their mission.
Straight off the bat I want to say I loved this film, I'm going to compare it to 2018's Halloween. Neither franchise is something I'm an expert in but these new incarnations to me feel quite respectful to the originals and manage to give us a successful modern take. They both create a homage of things that came before them, and I like that.
The film opens in a great way with the interview tape of Sarah Connor and I thought it was really clever to mix it with consistent effects onto the studio logos/trailers. I was also impressed with the flashback scene of Sarah and John... I genuinely thought I'd missed something from the previous films because I hadn't seen this footage. It was in fact done with a body double and some CGI from what I've read. The quality of the effects in this bit were amazing and I couldn't tell that it wasn't actual footage, it really threw me for a loop.
Our original characters have both developed since their outing in T2. Sarah is much more purposeful but I have to wonder what she was doing between the times she recounts during the film. The Terminator has managed to adapt to his own sort of "human" life, which again, looks like it's got a few holes in it, but neither case really had me pondering until after the film. Linda Hamilton gives a relaxed kick-ass action performance, Sarah has clearly honed her skills and has little emotion apart from hatred coursing through her veins when she's on a mission, it gave a satisfying little lift to things for me. I couldn't help but believe her attitude to everything, still a little bit of the crazy about her but her determination to keep the machines from rising gives her laser focus.
The Terminator, now going by the name Carl is left to do his own thing after completing his mission. I don't know how I feel about this, would there not have been programming beyond his original mission? Anyway, I can't go down that rabbit hole. I thought Arnie's performance was really good, he's still got that "unintentionally" funny thing down well and the chemistry between him and Hamilton really shone through. He's also done well to get Carl to be quite natural while still being a giant robot, had he played it human I don't think I'd have been so onboard... though I don't know how I felt about his new career.
Having the enhanced human character of Grace stopped the sequences from being too flat. With the emotionless side of things previously it was difficult to engage with all the scenes. Mackenzie Davis gets to do the Terminator acting while still being human, you get the human panic and the machine reacting and the blend works well. Her relationship with Dani is a nice one to follow and getting to see her backstory in flashbacks... wait, flashforwards... really added to it all.
Sadly I was disappointed with Dani in general, she's just kind of dragged along with everything and even though she was essentially our Sarah Connor of this film there's very little happening with her. Her character doesn't have enough substance, she doesn't have enough in her to play with the big boys around her. Dani is also confusing in the future story for several reasons, including issues with time travel which I'm not even going to get into.
Overall the effects were very good. The way the Rev-9 movies is unnatural and enthralling to watch and Gabriel Luna's performance was impressive when you think about how he'd have to act and react to some of the more sci-fi moments. The effects weren't great throughout though and in the underwater scene with Arnie and the Rev-9 I was frowning slightly at the screen. The whole thing had a rather misty feel to it and was much more distracting than you'd think.
The other thing I feel is worth mentioning is that there are some odd choices with slow-motion shots. I couldn't see any correlation between the shots and why they'd been chosen for this effect, some happened close together and others happened out on their own and hardly any fit naturally into the scenes. The only one that felt right was Grace sizing up her shot early on, it showed us one of her abilities and that worked well, but after that they felt more like they were trying to show off more than actually picking spots that would have any impact.
Dark Fate has a lot of nice little nods back to the originals and that made for a satisfying watch. There's subtle humour and surprisingly some emotional scenes too, I came out of this and felt really content having seen it. Despite my quibbles, or which I now realise there were many, I really enjoyed this film.
What you should do
It's definitely worth a watch, it's some good mindless action and I think it's a good follow on to the original two films.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some super robot enhancements wouldn't go amiss.
Piper (13 KP) rated Strangers: Prey at Night (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Real-feeling Characters (2 more)
Escalating Tension
Some Excellent Scenes
Some Naff Shots (1 more)
Hammy Acting
Contains spoilers, click to show
I’ve heard a lot of trash about this movie, and only some of it is right. Don’t get me wrong - it has its downfalls. We’ll get to those. But it’s a genuinely fun horror movie and, considering the predictability of the slasher genre, it’s fairly terrifying: the suspense doesn’t let up from damn near the beginning. For full disclosure, I haven’t seen the original Strangers movie, and I’ve heard it’s a whole lot better than this 2018 sequel. But the fact that Prey at Night stands successfully alone as a movie means it doesn’t matter which order you watch them in - all I’d say is that it’s probably best not to pay much attention to the reviews on this one (as sefl-destructive as a comment like that might be). It’s impressive in its own right, and if this apparently-subpar sequel is anything to go by, the original must be worthwhile. I’ll let you know once I’ve actually seen it.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Death By Rock and Roll by The Pretty Reckless
Album
Rock 'n' roll is a religion. It's a commitment to an ideal, a belief system. The lifestyle and...