Search
Search results
Kelly (279 KP) rated Spartacus - Season 1 in TV
Dec 21, 2018
Gladiators (1 more)
Great fighting scenes
Much better than the 1960 film
Who would have thought that the story of Spartacus could have been made raunchy for a modern audience, but Starz did this really well. The general facts around the slave rebellion against the Romans, led by the former gladiator Spartacus are limited, however Starz used what information there was and filled in the rest to create a believable version of the tale.
I know that around the release of the series, there was a lot of talk about the use of CGI in the show, mainly during the battle scenes, with the appearance of animated blood splatters/slashes, similar to that shown in the film 300. This use seemed to have divided the audience into either ‘love it’ or ‘hate it’. Personally, I feel that this was the unique selling point of the show- something different that we are not used to on the TV screen, I felt it helped made the show more watchable.
For me Andy Whitfield made Spartacus (and his loss was noticed in the later series of the show). His love towards wife Sura is clear throughout series one, and gave us a believable reason as to why he allowed himself to be manipulated by Batiatus. He was also supported by a number of well cast actors including Manu Bennett (Crixus) and Peter Mensah (Oenomaus), by the end of the series, we find that we really care about these characters.
The reason that I have not rated the show higher, is the casting of John Hannah as Batiatus. John Hannah is a good actor, but I felt the role was not suited to him. To me, Batiatus needed to be a little crueler and more angry, at the end of the day, he was profit and power hungry, and willing to give the lives of men in order to pay the cost of his personal success. There were times, when I did not believe that this was what John Hannah was portrayed, and there was an awkwardness around some of his scenes (particularly those where there were a lot of swearing).
Overall, despite the odd flaw, I really enjoyed watching Spartacus (and have happily purchased the complete box set for re-watching in future) .
I know that around the release of the series, there was a lot of talk about the use of CGI in the show, mainly during the battle scenes, with the appearance of animated blood splatters/slashes, similar to that shown in the film 300. This use seemed to have divided the audience into either ‘love it’ or ‘hate it’. Personally, I feel that this was the unique selling point of the show- something different that we are not used to on the TV screen, I felt it helped made the show more watchable.
For me Andy Whitfield made Spartacus (and his loss was noticed in the later series of the show). His love towards wife Sura is clear throughout series one, and gave us a believable reason as to why he allowed himself to be manipulated by Batiatus. He was also supported by a number of well cast actors including Manu Bennett (Crixus) and Peter Mensah (Oenomaus), by the end of the series, we find that we really care about these characters.
The reason that I have not rated the show higher, is the casting of John Hannah as Batiatus. John Hannah is a good actor, but I felt the role was not suited to him. To me, Batiatus needed to be a little crueler and more angry, at the end of the day, he was profit and power hungry, and willing to give the lives of men in order to pay the cost of his personal success. There were times, when I did not believe that this was what John Hannah was portrayed, and there was an awkwardness around some of his scenes (particularly those where there were a lot of swearing).
Overall, despite the odd flaw, I really enjoyed watching Spartacus (and have happily purchased the complete box set for re-watching in future) .
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Bells On Her Toes in Books
Nov 8, 2019
When a body is discovered in a burnt-out barn, DCI Peter Hatherall and DI Fiona Williams are assigned to investigate. The barn is owned by a racehorse trainer and the two detectives struggle to penetrate the closed and secretive world of horse racing to uncover who the body is and why they were murdered. As the body count rises Hatharall's personal life starts to impact on his professional judgement putting not only the investigation but lives at risk.
The police procedural has a long and distinguished history and Febry does an excellent job in following the formula and adding enough twists and turns to keep the reader guessing. Everything is told from a personal point of view (mostly Williams') and the author does a great job in conveying personality through how events are described. One of the key suspects also provides some of their thoughts between chapters and this very effectively cranks the tension up.
The cast of characters is very convincing. The detective with personal problems has very much become a cliche but Hatherall is drawn in a very realistic and human light and is clearly struggling. Williams has her own relationship issues and their interaction has a ring of authenticity. The cast of suspects is wide and a number of them could easily be guily. What is certain is that it will take time for all the secrets to be uncovered.
The plot has many twists and plenty of red herrings for both the reader and the detectives to fall foul of. The stakes are constantly raised until the final confrontation.
When reading this book I was reminded of one of my favourite detective thriller novelists, Reginald Hill. The characterisation, the plot twists and some of the way Febry plays with the reader's expectations reminded so much of a Dalziel and Pascoe novel. I think that's a very fair comparison and although Peter Hathersall is not at all like Andy Dalziel he is still a detective who works with both facts and instinct
This books is part of a series (and indeed one of the other books in the series is mentioned in passing) and if this novel is anything to go by the series is one to read as soon as possible. Anyone who likes a good detective novel with interesting characters and plenty of twists will like this. A lot.
The police procedural has a long and distinguished history and Febry does an excellent job in following the formula and adding enough twists and turns to keep the reader guessing. Everything is told from a personal point of view (mostly Williams') and the author does a great job in conveying personality through how events are described. One of the key suspects also provides some of their thoughts between chapters and this very effectively cranks the tension up.
The cast of characters is very convincing. The detective with personal problems has very much become a cliche but Hatherall is drawn in a very realistic and human light and is clearly struggling. Williams has her own relationship issues and their interaction has a ring of authenticity. The cast of suspects is wide and a number of them could easily be guily. What is certain is that it will take time for all the secrets to be uncovered.
The plot has many twists and plenty of red herrings for both the reader and the detectives to fall foul of. The stakes are constantly raised until the final confrontation.
When reading this book I was reminded of one of my favourite detective thriller novelists, Reginald Hill. The characterisation, the plot twists and some of the way Febry plays with the reader's expectations reminded so much of a Dalziel and Pascoe novel. I think that's a very fair comparison and although Peter Hathersall is not at all like Andy Dalziel he is still a detective who works with both facts and instinct
This books is part of a series (and indeed one of the other books in the series is mentioned in passing) and if this novel is anything to go by the series is one to read as soon as possible. Anyone who likes a good detective novel with interesting characters and plenty of twists will like this. A lot.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hot Rod (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Following up their successful sting on Saturday Night Live, the video masterminds behind such hits as “Lazy Sunday, and “Dick in a Box”, the Lonely Island Boys have unleashed a wild comedy that skewers some of the best comedy standards of the last two decades.
In “Hot Rod”, Andy Samberg stars as Rod Kimble, self proclaimed stuntman who believes he is the offspring of a stunt coordinator. Rod never misses a chance to try a new death defying stunt with the help of his stunt crew. There is just one problem, Rod is probably the worst stuntman ever to grace the planet.
Armed with his trusty moped, Rod attempts to jump swimming pools, vans, and even body boards all with failed and side-splitting results.
Rod also is struggling to win the respect of his stepfather Frank, (Ian McShane), and comes to believe he can only do this by winning one of their numerous fight sessions. As is expected, Rod is even worse at fighting as he is at stunts. This is time leads to a real dilema for Rod, when Frank becomes ill and needs an operation which the family is unable to afford.
Rod decides that he must raise the money to save Frank, so he can kick his butt and gain his respect. Towards this end, Rod rent himself out as a stuntman for hire, and some very funny moments ensue as each outing is even more inept than the one that preceded it.
As if Rod did not have enough trouble in his life, he admires the newest member of his stunt team Denise (Isla Fisher), but runs afoul of her jerky boyfriend Jonathan (Will Arnett), which leads to even more mayhem as the film unfolds in an enjoyable but predictable love triangle. While the plot is not likely to set any new standards for originality, the film shines when it is sending up the numerous films from the 80’s such as “Footloose”, and “Rad” with their often over the top sendups.
While there are stretches of the film that seem to be going nowhere, the film cleverly will turn on a dime and go off in new tangents often with hysterical results which is the strength of the film. Many times I found myself watching the film thinking segments were really out there or dumb, only to erupt in laughter when the scenes played out to their conclusions.
The biggest weakness of the film is that like many other films that star Saturday Night Live cast members, some of the jokes hit and some miss, especially when sketch length bits are carried out over 90 minutes.
While the film was designed to pay homage to past films, it works suprisingly well as not only a pop culture satire, but as a physical comedy. With fine supporting work by Sissy Spacek and Jorma Taccone, “Hot Rod” rises above its stupid comedy origins and creates a fresh, if silly offering that will leave you laughing.
In “Hot Rod”, Andy Samberg stars as Rod Kimble, self proclaimed stuntman who believes he is the offspring of a stunt coordinator. Rod never misses a chance to try a new death defying stunt with the help of his stunt crew. There is just one problem, Rod is probably the worst stuntman ever to grace the planet.
Armed with his trusty moped, Rod attempts to jump swimming pools, vans, and even body boards all with failed and side-splitting results.
Rod also is struggling to win the respect of his stepfather Frank, (Ian McShane), and comes to believe he can only do this by winning one of their numerous fight sessions. As is expected, Rod is even worse at fighting as he is at stunts. This is time leads to a real dilema for Rod, when Frank becomes ill and needs an operation which the family is unable to afford.
Rod decides that he must raise the money to save Frank, so he can kick his butt and gain his respect. Towards this end, Rod rent himself out as a stuntman for hire, and some very funny moments ensue as each outing is even more inept than the one that preceded it.
As if Rod did not have enough trouble in his life, he admires the newest member of his stunt team Denise (Isla Fisher), but runs afoul of her jerky boyfriend Jonathan (Will Arnett), which leads to even more mayhem as the film unfolds in an enjoyable but predictable love triangle. While the plot is not likely to set any new standards for originality, the film shines when it is sending up the numerous films from the 80’s such as “Footloose”, and “Rad” with their often over the top sendups.
While there are stretches of the film that seem to be going nowhere, the film cleverly will turn on a dime and go off in new tangents often with hysterical results which is the strength of the film. Many times I found myself watching the film thinking segments were really out there or dumb, only to erupt in laughter when the scenes played out to their conclusions.
The biggest weakness of the film is that like many other films that star Saturday Night Live cast members, some of the jokes hit and some miss, especially when sketch length bits are carried out over 90 minutes.
While the film was designed to pay homage to past films, it works suprisingly well as not only a pop culture satire, but as a physical comedy. With fine supporting work by Sissy Spacek and Jorma Taccone, “Hot Rod” rises above its stupid comedy origins and creates a fresh, if silly offering that will leave you laughing.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
May 4, 2019 (Updated May 4, 2019)
Surprisingly Strong Chemistry Between The Leads
Quite a few people that I have spoken with don't like either Charlize Theron or Seth Rogan as performers, so the idea of a pairing of the straight-laced, uptight politician played by Theron and the shlubby, weed-smoking slacker played by Rogan was like "nails on a chalkboard" to them.
And these people would be wrong, for LONG SHOT is a very entertaining, heartfelt romantic comedy that has one big surprise - the strong chemistry between the two leads.
Kind of the "anti-AMERICAN PRESIDENT" (the 1995 Michael Douglas/Annette Benning RomCom written by Aaron Sorkin), LONG SHOT tells the tale of Secretary of State, Charlotte Field (Theron) who embarks on a Presidential bid. When she polls low in "sense of humor" she decides to add a comedy writer to her staff to punch up her speeches. A chance encounter with her childhood next door neighbor leads Field to hire Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Will sparks fly? Can Fred remind Charlotte of why she chose politics in the first place?
What do you think? It's a RomCom afterall, but it's the journey and not the destination that is important.
And...his is a fun journey...mostly because of the performances of Theron and Rogan. Over the years, I have grown to really appreciate Theron - from dramas like NORTH COUNTRY and her Oscar-winning turn in MONSTER, to action flicks like MAD MAX:FURY ROAD and FATE OF THE FURIOUS, to comedies like A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST and this film - there is nothing (apparently) that she can't do. She is really good in all of these - even if the material is not the greatest.
The surprise to me here was the performance of Rogan - it was "wacky", "stoner-ish" and "out there", but toned down and tempered - probably the sign of a good, strong Director at the helm. I bought Flarsky's journey in this story and the relationship between these two characters was believable because Rogan was able to match Theron's energy and show real chemistry between the two.
Other fine turns are given by O'Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), as Rogan's buddy, Ravi Patel (TV's MASTER OF NONE) as one of Theron's support staff and (especially) June Diane Rapheal (TV's GRACE AND FRANKIE) who really shines in the unenviable role of the Theron's Chief of Staff who doesn't approve of putting Rogan's character on the team, but she plays the role with layers - not one-note - and so we get a real person, with conflicted feelings at time, and she rises above the typical type of character in this type of role.
The only disappointment for me was Bob Odenkirk's President (who is stepping down for - he hopes - a much bigger job, MOVIE STAR) and not because of Odenkirk's performance, he was fine with what he was given, but there wasn't much nuance written in this part and (compared to the layers shown/written by others) the one-note-ness of Odenkirk's character was noticeable. As was Andy Serkis as a heavily-made up, older media mogul who is trying to use his wealth to manipulate the events from behind the scene - this character (and make-up) was a "swing and a miss" for me. But, fortunately, neither Serkis nor Odenkirk have much screen time, so it was more of a "distraction" than an "annoyance" for me.
I mention the Director - so I better give credit to Jonathan Levine (the awful SNATCHED with Amy Shumer and Goldie Hawn) - I have not really enjoyed anything else he has Directed, but I have to give him credit for this one - he brings "the funny and the crude" without going overboard, driving the story efficiently while putting in enough yuks and (surprisingly) heart in this movie along the way.
Now...don't be fooled here...there is quite a bit of "crude, lewd and rude" behavior and jokes (a crucial plot point hangs on a "sex act"), so don't expect a gentile, Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn battle of the sexes. Expect a funny (crude), sexy (lewd) and opinionated (rude) take on the modern political system and how a person can lose their soul if they choose to play the game.
With a large amount of heart - and strong performances/chemistry between the two leads - I was pleasantly surprised by LONG SHOT - and, if you can handle the crude, lude and rude, then you will have a good time at this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And these people would be wrong, for LONG SHOT is a very entertaining, heartfelt romantic comedy that has one big surprise - the strong chemistry between the two leads.
Kind of the "anti-AMERICAN PRESIDENT" (the 1995 Michael Douglas/Annette Benning RomCom written by Aaron Sorkin), LONG SHOT tells the tale of Secretary of State, Charlotte Field (Theron) who embarks on a Presidential bid. When she polls low in "sense of humor" she decides to add a comedy writer to her staff to punch up her speeches. A chance encounter with her childhood next door neighbor leads Field to hire Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Will sparks fly? Can Fred remind Charlotte of why she chose politics in the first place?
What do you think? It's a RomCom afterall, but it's the journey and not the destination that is important.
And...his is a fun journey...mostly because of the performances of Theron and Rogan. Over the years, I have grown to really appreciate Theron - from dramas like NORTH COUNTRY and her Oscar-winning turn in MONSTER, to action flicks like MAD MAX:FURY ROAD and FATE OF THE FURIOUS, to comedies like A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST and this film - there is nothing (apparently) that she can't do. She is really good in all of these - even if the material is not the greatest.
The surprise to me here was the performance of Rogan - it was "wacky", "stoner-ish" and "out there", but toned down and tempered - probably the sign of a good, strong Director at the helm. I bought Flarsky's journey in this story and the relationship between these two characters was believable because Rogan was able to match Theron's energy and show real chemistry between the two.
Other fine turns are given by O'Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), as Rogan's buddy, Ravi Patel (TV's MASTER OF NONE) as one of Theron's support staff and (especially) June Diane Rapheal (TV's GRACE AND FRANKIE) who really shines in the unenviable role of the Theron's Chief of Staff who doesn't approve of putting Rogan's character on the team, but she plays the role with layers - not one-note - and so we get a real person, with conflicted feelings at time, and she rises above the typical type of character in this type of role.
The only disappointment for me was Bob Odenkirk's President (who is stepping down for - he hopes - a much bigger job, MOVIE STAR) and not because of Odenkirk's performance, he was fine with what he was given, but there wasn't much nuance written in this part and (compared to the layers shown/written by others) the one-note-ness of Odenkirk's character was noticeable. As was Andy Serkis as a heavily-made up, older media mogul who is trying to use his wealth to manipulate the events from behind the scene - this character (and make-up) was a "swing and a miss" for me. But, fortunately, neither Serkis nor Odenkirk have much screen time, so it was more of a "distraction" than an "annoyance" for me.
I mention the Director - so I better give credit to Jonathan Levine (the awful SNATCHED with Amy Shumer and Goldie Hawn) - I have not really enjoyed anything else he has Directed, but I have to give him credit for this one - he brings "the funny and the crude" without going overboard, driving the story efficiently while putting in enough yuks and (surprisingly) heart in this movie along the way.
Now...don't be fooled here...there is quite a bit of "crude, lewd and rude" behavior and jokes (a crucial plot point hangs on a "sex act"), so don't expect a gentile, Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn battle of the sexes. Expect a funny (crude), sexy (lewd) and opinionated (rude) take on the modern political system and how a person can lose their soul if they choose to play the game.
With a large amount of heart - and strong performances/chemistry between the two leads - I was pleasantly surprised by LONG SHOT - and, if you can handle the crude, lude and rude, then you will have a good time at this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Feb 19, 2018
The cast (2 more)
Wakanda
The villain
Some side characters feel under developed (1 more)
Some CGI not great
Following on from the light-hearted romps that made up the MCU last year, Black Panther comes along and reminds us that the franchise can be dark, it can be gritty, and it can combine comedic elements with its more serious stories seamlessly when it puts its mind to it.
Last seen in Captain America: Civil War, we re-join T’challa not long after that films conclusion. He’s about to be made king and he’s apprehensive about what that means and what the future of his country, Wakanda, holds. On top of that, he’s struck with a disturbing secret from his now deceased fathers past that threatens to alter everything.
First up, the cast. Chadwick Boseman is once again superb in the lead role. He plays T’challa with a degree of calmness that really makes him feel like a real and well-rounded character. But the surprise here is just how well everyone else does. Some characters don’t get quite as much attention as they deserve (there are two romance plots that feel a little shoehorned in) but when it comes to the people playing these roles- they all do superb work. Danai Gurira has shown what she can do on The Walking Dead (a show she is now so much better than), she brings a whole new level to her performance here and steals many scenes she’s in. Andy Serkis is another highlight. He reprises his role as Ulysses Klaue from Avengers: Age of Ultron and is clearly having a ball in the role. Always an underrated actor, he brings life and comedy to the role here and he’s another scene stealer. Props too to Martin Freeman. He is able to turn his character from an unlikable smug man to someone I found myself truly rooting for. Best of the bunch for me though is Letitia Wright as Shuri, in fact I think she could well be one of my favourite characters in the whole MCU so far. She’s a delight every single time I saw her and I really hope her role continues to develop as the franchise continues.
Now, about the villain. The MCU has almost always had a villain problem (one not exclusive to the MCU to be fair). The list of memorable villains for me only really consists of Loki and Vulture (Spiderman: Homecoming), now though- Killmonger can be added to that short list. His backstory isn’t overly original, but thanks to the always dependable Michael B Jordan he is utterly compelling. The performance here sells it and I found myself feeling sympathy for him despite the things he was doing. Hell, there were even times that I was rooting for him. That doesn’t happy very often and I’ve got to give the film credit for pulling it off.
Onto Wakanda, this is a fully realised and fascinating place to spend time. It was so much bigger than I expected and I’m excited to rewatch this (in 4k) to see all the details about I may have missed. It does however lead me on to a fault with the film. The CGI here isn’t always as great as it could be. There were numerous times when I felt I was watching actors perform against green screen and the mountain location was one of the more notable. It wouldn’t be such an issue if this wasn’t a prominent location that is used repeatedly for some of the movies biggest moments. There’s other instances too where Black Panther’s ideas aren’t realised as well as I’m sure they hoped. It doesn’t ruin the film by any means, but it is disappointing when lesser movies have managed better.
All in all though, this was a delightful movie and my favourite entry in the MCU since Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Ryan Coogler continues to bring the goods to the work he does and I can’t wait to see what he does next. Even more so I can’t wait to see what Black Panther does next. Now, onto Avengers: Infinity War in just two months’ time.
Last seen in Captain America: Civil War, we re-join T’challa not long after that films conclusion. He’s about to be made king and he’s apprehensive about what that means and what the future of his country, Wakanda, holds. On top of that, he’s struck with a disturbing secret from his now deceased fathers past that threatens to alter everything.
First up, the cast. Chadwick Boseman is once again superb in the lead role. He plays T’challa with a degree of calmness that really makes him feel like a real and well-rounded character. But the surprise here is just how well everyone else does. Some characters don’t get quite as much attention as they deserve (there are two romance plots that feel a little shoehorned in) but when it comes to the people playing these roles- they all do superb work. Danai Gurira has shown what she can do on The Walking Dead (a show she is now so much better than), she brings a whole new level to her performance here and steals many scenes she’s in. Andy Serkis is another highlight. He reprises his role as Ulysses Klaue from Avengers: Age of Ultron and is clearly having a ball in the role. Always an underrated actor, he brings life and comedy to the role here and he’s another scene stealer. Props too to Martin Freeman. He is able to turn his character from an unlikable smug man to someone I found myself truly rooting for. Best of the bunch for me though is Letitia Wright as Shuri, in fact I think she could well be one of my favourite characters in the whole MCU so far. She’s a delight every single time I saw her and I really hope her role continues to develop as the franchise continues.
Now, about the villain. The MCU has almost always had a villain problem (one not exclusive to the MCU to be fair). The list of memorable villains for me only really consists of Loki and Vulture (Spiderman: Homecoming), now though- Killmonger can be added to that short list. His backstory isn’t overly original, but thanks to the always dependable Michael B Jordan he is utterly compelling. The performance here sells it and I found myself feeling sympathy for him despite the things he was doing. Hell, there were even times that I was rooting for him. That doesn’t happy very often and I’ve got to give the film credit for pulling it off.
Onto Wakanda, this is a fully realised and fascinating place to spend time. It was so much bigger than I expected and I’m excited to rewatch this (in 4k) to see all the details about I may have missed. It does however lead me on to a fault with the film. The CGI here isn’t always as great as it could be. There were numerous times when I felt I was watching actors perform against green screen and the mountain location was one of the more notable. It wouldn’t be such an issue if this wasn’t a prominent location that is used repeatedly for some of the movies biggest moments. There’s other instances too where Black Panther’s ideas aren’t realised as well as I’m sure they hoped. It doesn’t ruin the film by any means, but it is disappointing when lesser movies have managed better.
All in all though, this was a delightful movie and my favourite entry in the MCU since Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Ryan Coogler continues to bring the goods to the work he does and I can’t wait to see what he does next. Even more so I can’t wait to see what Black Panther does next. Now, onto Avengers: Infinity War in just two months’ time.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Toy Story 3 (2010) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Character-Driven Masterpiece
There aren’t a lot of movie series’ that get better with each movie, but the Toy Story franchise has definitely accomplished that. Toy Story 3 is not just the best movie of the franchise to date, but it’s also one of the greatest movies ever made. Also, before I go any further: DAMN, it feels good to be posting another review. To quote John Wick: “Yeah, I’m thinking I’m back!” But I digress…In this third installment, Andy is all grown up and the gang sets their sights on a preschool where they hope to get played with everyday for eternity.
Acting: 10
It’s almost unfair when you think about the amazing cast of the Toy Story franchise. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen as Woody ad Buzz really have a way of putting you dead in the moment. These are toys, yet, somehow, the phenomenal acting jobs truly brings them to life as sentient beings. Their pain as well as their triumphs are felt throughout.
Beginning: 10
Yet another thing this franchise has gotten down to a science. The first five minutes of the movie puts you in a grand adventure where all the toys are facing off against each other. Then the next five minutes are heartbreaking. It’s a pleasant rollercoaster that sets the story up perfectly.
Characters: 10
The gang’s all here, including Cowgirl Jessie from the last movie and her horse Bullseye. In addition to having their own flavor and personality, I can really appreciate how Buzz and Woody continue to develop as characters. Buzz continues to try and be the voice of reason while Woody relies mainly on his emotion. I really enjoyed Lotso (Ned Beatty) as well, a purple teddy who smells like strawberries and walks with a cane. If those were his only interesting quirks that would be enough, but there is so much more to appreciate about his character that I won’t give away.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You know the visuals are at masterpiece levels when I’m marveling at a trash bag. A trash bag for God’s sake! But man the detail on this bag, the way it moved just so perfectly. I know, I’m a nutcase, but this trash bag! It’s the sheer attention to detail that blows my mind. There is another shot, and this one is probably my favorite, of Lotso stepping into the lights of a Tonka truck with his cronies to approach Buzz and the gang. The way the light hits perfectly casting shadows definitely tells me there are no shortages of geniuses at Pixar.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Toy Story 3 is why I love movies. From bottom to top, it checks all the boxes. You will experience a wave of emotions and have fun the whole way.
Memorability: 10
The movie casts a memorable message about our ability to let go and move on. Watching this at different points in my life, every single time I could relate to Woody and his struggles with letting go. Oh yeah, and the film is super fun too. I can’t count the number of moments where I marveled at how this movie does things that creatively surpass the other two. Like Up, this is a movie that sticks with you long after you watch it.
Pace: 10
The longest of the three, yet it somehow feels like the shortest. There is always something exciting that’s happening. Its ebbs and flows move the story along with every single detail somehow feeling important.
Plot: 10
Watching this made me think, “Oh my goodness, they could do a hundred more of these and it would never get old.” This story stands alone and has actual plausibility…well, as toy stories go anyway. At one point, the movie moves from new adventure to crazy heist to prison break. And I’m here for all of it, every last piece.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
Watching a movie like this is like watching a talented gymnast perform an unforgettable routine. You know you want to give it a perfect score provided they stick the landing. Beginning, middle, and end Toy Story 3 establishes credibility as being epic and damn-near perfect. Landing stuck.
Acting: 10
It’s almost unfair when you think about the amazing cast of the Toy Story franchise. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen as Woody ad Buzz really have a way of putting you dead in the moment. These are toys, yet, somehow, the phenomenal acting jobs truly brings them to life as sentient beings. Their pain as well as their triumphs are felt throughout.
Beginning: 10
Yet another thing this franchise has gotten down to a science. The first five minutes of the movie puts you in a grand adventure where all the toys are facing off against each other. Then the next five minutes are heartbreaking. It’s a pleasant rollercoaster that sets the story up perfectly.
Characters: 10
The gang’s all here, including Cowgirl Jessie from the last movie and her horse Bullseye. In addition to having their own flavor and personality, I can really appreciate how Buzz and Woody continue to develop as characters. Buzz continues to try and be the voice of reason while Woody relies mainly on his emotion. I really enjoyed Lotso (Ned Beatty) as well, a purple teddy who smells like strawberries and walks with a cane. If those were his only interesting quirks that would be enough, but there is so much more to appreciate about his character that I won’t give away.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You know the visuals are at masterpiece levels when I’m marveling at a trash bag. A trash bag for God’s sake! But man the detail on this bag, the way it moved just so perfectly. I know, I’m a nutcase, but this trash bag! It’s the sheer attention to detail that blows my mind. There is another shot, and this one is probably my favorite, of Lotso stepping into the lights of a Tonka truck with his cronies to approach Buzz and the gang. The way the light hits perfectly casting shadows definitely tells me there are no shortages of geniuses at Pixar.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Toy Story 3 is why I love movies. From bottom to top, it checks all the boxes. You will experience a wave of emotions and have fun the whole way.
Memorability: 10
The movie casts a memorable message about our ability to let go and move on. Watching this at different points in my life, every single time I could relate to Woody and his struggles with letting go. Oh yeah, and the film is super fun too. I can’t count the number of moments where I marveled at how this movie does things that creatively surpass the other two. Like Up, this is a movie that sticks with you long after you watch it.
Pace: 10
The longest of the three, yet it somehow feels like the shortest. There is always something exciting that’s happening. Its ebbs and flows move the story along with every single detail somehow feeling important.
Plot: 10
Watching this made me think, “Oh my goodness, they could do a hundred more of these and it would never get old.” This story stands alone and has actual plausibility…well, as toy stories go anyway. At one point, the movie moves from new adventure to crazy heist to prison break. And I’m here for all of it, every last piece.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
Watching a movie like this is like watching a talented gymnast perform an unforgettable routine. You know you want to give it a perfect score provided they stick the landing. Beginning, middle, and end Toy Story 3 establishes credibility as being epic and damn-near perfect. Landing stuck.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
IT… didn’t really float my boat.
IT is based on the Stephen King novel, and tells the disturbing recurring events that happen within the town of Derry in Maine. Kids keep disappearing and sightings of a spooky clown, other visitations and red balloons occur. A group of bullied high school kids – one directly impacted by the disappearances – work to get to the bottom of the supernatural goings on. (Fortunately they don’t have a dog called Scooby).
I had in mind that with the disturbing and dangerous “clowning around” that happened in the summer of 2016 that this film had been shot a while ago and the release delayed until now for fear of adding ‘clown-flavoured fuel’ to the fire. But it appears that filming only completed in September of last year, so that appears not to be the case.
The film starts memorably and brutally with the “drain scene” from the trailer. And very effective it is too. “Great!” you think… this is a spookfest that has legs! Unfortunately, for me at least, it all went downhill from there. The film really doesn’t seem to know WHAT it’s trying to be. There are elements of “Stand By Me”; elements of “Alien”; elements of “The Conjuring”, all thrown into a cinematic blender and pulsed well.
The most endearing aspects of the movie are the interactions of the small-town kids, with this aspect of the film bearing the closest comparison with J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8”. This is carried by the great performances of the young actors involved, with Jaeden Lieberher (so memorable in “Midnight Special”) as Bill; Jeremy Ray Taylor (“Ant Man”) as Ben (‘the chubby one’); and Finn Wolfhard, in his big-screen premiere and sporting an absurd set of glasses, as the wise-cracking Ritchie.
Standout for my though was the then 14-year old Sophia Lillis as Beverly (the nearest equivalent to the Elle Fanning role in “Super 8”). This young lady has SUCH screen presence, reminiscent of Emma Watson in the Harry Potter films. I think she is a name to watch!
While commenting on the acting I do need to acknowledge Bill Skarsgård (“Atomic Blonde” and son of Stellan Skarsgård) who is creepily effective as Pennywise the clown.
Having a film that just centred on the pubescent interplay between the youngsters and their battles against the near-psychopathic school bully Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton, “Captain Fantastic”) would have kept me well-entertained for two hours. However, in the same way that the hugely over-inflated Sci-Fi ending of “Super 8” rather detracted from that film, so the clown-related story popping up all the time just irritated me to distraction. (“WILL YOU JUST FECK OFF AND LEAVE US TO FIND OUT WHO BEVERLY GETS OFF WITH???!!”)
While the film has a number of good jump-scares, a lot of them – especially those with excessive use of CGI – just don’t really work. There are normally no “outcomes” from the scares. It’s all a bit like a ghost train where the carriage rounds a corner, something jumps out, and then the carriage moves on round the corner again! What makes a great horror film is where the “science” of the horror is well thought through. “Alien” was an exceptional example of that, where the science wasn’t just “physics” but also “biology”. Here (and I’m not sure whether this is true to the book… this is one of Stephen King’s I haven’t read) there seems to be no rules involved at all. Things happen fairly randomly: shape-shifting and effects on physical objects happen with no rational explanation; the kids can see things adults can’t see. (Why?). In fact the “adults” – the usual mix of Stephen King dysfunctional small-town crazies – seem to have no significant part in the story at all. It’s all like some lame teenage fantasy where actions (a number of individuals in the story meet their demise) seem to carry no legal consequences whatsoever. I half expected Bill to wake up – Dallas style – at the end and realise it had all been an “awful dream”!
In particular, the denouement is highly dissatisfying. An opportunity for a (very black) twist in the plot is discarded. Pennywise the clown’s departure is both lame and unconvincing. And there are numerous loose ends that are never properly tied down (what was that “floaters descending” dialogue about?…. it was just never followed through!).
It’s not all bad though. The location shoots in Bangor, Maine and the Ontario countryside are all beautifully rendered by cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung (“Stoker”) and where the film clicks with the young cast it clicks well and enjoyably. I just wish that the overall film wasn’t just such a jumbled-up mess. Blame for that must lie with the screenwriting team and director Andy Muschietti (“Mama”). I’m going to give it a kicking in my rating, since with all the marketing build-up it was certainly a disappointment. I see though that at the time of writing that this film sports an unfathomably high imdb rating of 8.0/10 so I’ll acknowledge that somebody must have seen something more in this than I did!!
I had in mind that with the disturbing and dangerous “clowning around” that happened in the summer of 2016 that this film had been shot a while ago and the release delayed until now for fear of adding ‘clown-flavoured fuel’ to the fire. But it appears that filming only completed in September of last year, so that appears not to be the case.
The film starts memorably and brutally with the “drain scene” from the trailer. And very effective it is too. “Great!” you think… this is a spookfest that has legs! Unfortunately, for me at least, it all went downhill from there. The film really doesn’t seem to know WHAT it’s trying to be. There are elements of “Stand By Me”; elements of “Alien”; elements of “The Conjuring”, all thrown into a cinematic blender and pulsed well.
The most endearing aspects of the movie are the interactions of the small-town kids, with this aspect of the film bearing the closest comparison with J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8”. This is carried by the great performances of the young actors involved, with Jaeden Lieberher (so memorable in “Midnight Special”) as Bill; Jeremy Ray Taylor (“Ant Man”) as Ben (‘the chubby one’); and Finn Wolfhard, in his big-screen premiere and sporting an absurd set of glasses, as the wise-cracking Ritchie.
Standout for my though was the then 14-year old Sophia Lillis as Beverly (the nearest equivalent to the Elle Fanning role in “Super 8”). This young lady has SUCH screen presence, reminiscent of Emma Watson in the Harry Potter films. I think she is a name to watch!
While commenting on the acting I do need to acknowledge Bill Skarsgård (“Atomic Blonde” and son of Stellan Skarsgård) who is creepily effective as Pennywise the clown.
Having a film that just centred on the pubescent interplay between the youngsters and their battles against the near-psychopathic school bully Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton, “Captain Fantastic”) would have kept me well-entertained for two hours. However, in the same way that the hugely over-inflated Sci-Fi ending of “Super 8” rather detracted from that film, so the clown-related story popping up all the time just irritated me to distraction. (“WILL YOU JUST FECK OFF AND LEAVE US TO FIND OUT WHO BEVERLY GETS OFF WITH???!!”)
While the film has a number of good jump-scares, a lot of them – especially those with excessive use of CGI – just don’t really work. There are normally no “outcomes” from the scares. It’s all a bit like a ghost train where the carriage rounds a corner, something jumps out, and then the carriage moves on round the corner again! What makes a great horror film is where the “science” of the horror is well thought through. “Alien” was an exceptional example of that, where the science wasn’t just “physics” but also “biology”. Here (and I’m not sure whether this is true to the book… this is one of Stephen King’s I haven’t read) there seems to be no rules involved at all. Things happen fairly randomly: shape-shifting and effects on physical objects happen with no rational explanation; the kids can see things adults can’t see. (Why?). In fact the “adults” – the usual mix of Stephen King dysfunctional small-town crazies – seem to have no significant part in the story at all. It’s all like some lame teenage fantasy where actions (a number of individuals in the story meet their demise) seem to carry no legal consequences whatsoever. I half expected Bill to wake up – Dallas style – at the end and realise it had all been an “awful dream”!
In particular, the denouement is highly dissatisfying. An opportunity for a (very black) twist in the plot is discarded. Pennywise the clown’s departure is both lame and unconvincing. And there are numerous loose ends that are never properly tied down (what was that “floaters descending” dialogue about?…. it was just never followed through!).
It’s not all bad though. The location shoots in Bangor, Maine and the Ontario countryside are all beautifully rendered by cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung (“Stoker”) and where the film clicks with the young cast it clicks well and enjoyably. I just wish that the overall film wasn’t just such a jumbled-up mess. Blame for that must lie with the screenwriting team and director Andy Muschietti (“Mama”). I’m going to give it a kicking in my rating, since with all the marketing build-up it was certainly a disappointment. I see though that at the time of writing that this film sports an unfathomably high imdb rating of 8.0/10 so I’ll acknowledge that somebody must have seen something more in this than I did!!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Footloose (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Public dancing is against the law in the small religious town of Bomont. But Boston-raised teenager, Ren McCormack and the Reverend’s daughter Ariel have other ideas in this remake of the 1984 classic.
The original “Footloose” requires a 1980s mindset and was successful partially due the disjointed storytelling of teen films during that era. Up until now it could be said that there is no “Footloose” without Kevin Bacon. But surprise! The remake is so good that you may need to step back.
The cast is more polished than the original, particularly in lead female role of Ariel Moore brought back to the screen by Julianne Hough. Hough’s performance is more engaging than that of the original portrayal by Lori Singer. Taking the reigns of the role that made Kevin Bacon famous is Kenny Wormald as city boy Ren. Wormald wears the role with charm and the required “Footloose” too-cool-for-school style.
Reverend Shaw Moore, now played by Dennis Quaid, is far more emotional than the original depiction of the character first played by a John Lithgow. However, the same cannot be said for his wife, Vi Moore, with a disappointing performance from Andy McDowell. This is balanced however by the truly enjoyable portrayal of Ren’s best friend Willard by the well-timed comedy of Miles Teller.
Yes, there were cheesy moments. There was even a sunset so over the top that it may remind you Star Wars buffs of a certain lengthy romance scene in Episode Two. And yes, more than one of the reanimated lines from the classic film was forced. But the flubs were few and far between as this “Footloose” remake manages to succeed in many places where the original could have been improved.
The explanation of tragedy that originally befell Bomont has been extended, giving the town’s anti-dance perspective a little more sway. And this time around “Footloose” directly addresses a number of the small town versus big city stereotypes with strong dual sided humor.
The new “Footloose” still has less dancing then you want from a film entirely about dance, but when it does occur the style is much more diverse, ranging from hip hop to that famous “Footloose” country. There were things missed from the original; particularly the precision of Bacon’s solo dance scene, but this remake honors the impact of the original while standing on its own.
Now where do you buy a pair of red cowboy boots?!
The original “Footloose” requires a 1980s mindset and was successful partially due the disjointed storytelling of teen films during that era. Up until now it could be said that there is no “Footloose” without Kevin Bacon. But surprise! The remake is so good that you may need to step back.
The cast is more polished than the original, particularly in lead female role of Ariel Moore brought back to the screen by Julianne Hough. Hough’s performance is more engaging than that of the original portrayal by Lori Singer. Taking the reigns of the role that made Kevin Bacon famous is Kenny Wormald as city boy Ren. Wormald wears the role with charm and the required “Footloose” too-cool-for-school style.
Reverend Shaw Moore, now played by Dennis Quaid, is far more emotional than the original depiction of the character first played by a John Lithgow. However, the same cannot be said for his wife, Vi Moore, with a disappointing performance from Andy McDowell. This is balanced however by the truly enjoyable portrayal of Ren’s best friend Willard by the well-timed comedy of Miles Teller.
Yes, there were cheesy moments. There was even a sunset so over the top that it may remind you Star Wars buffs of a certain lengthy romance scene in Episode Two. And yes, more than one of the reanimated lines from the classic film was forced. But the flubs were few and far between as this “Footloose” remake manages to succeed in many places where the original could have been improved.
The explanation of tragedy that originally befell Bomont has been extended, giving the town’s anti-dance perspective a little more sway. And this time around “Footloose” directly addresses a number of the small town versus big city stereotypes with strong dual sided humor.
The new “Footloose” still has less dancing then you want from a film entirely about dance, but when it does occur the style is much more diverse, ranging from hip hop to that famous “Footloose” country. There were things missed from the original; particularly the precision of Bacon’s solo dance scene, but this remake honors the impact of the original while standing on its own.
Now where do you buy a pair of red cowboy boots?!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the “ape” in “The Great Esc-ape”.
2011’s “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” was the one of the big movie surprises for me of that year. With staggeringly good mo-cap for the apes and a touching and memorable story it was (or would have been) a 5-Fad classic. 2014’s “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” whilst also good took a slight backward step. With “War”, the form is back almost to top notch, and this is a summer release at last deserving of the suffix “blockbuster”.
We have moved a number of years forwards from the events of “Dawn” and society as we know it has crumbled away still further: even the “Holidays are Coming” Coke lorry is no longer in service, so things MUST be bad! We begin the film with the apes having a nice ‘Centre Parcs’ break when their reverie and cappuccinos are rudely interrupted by the attacking forces of “The Colonel” (Woody Harrelson, “Triple 9“, “Zombieland”). For The Colonel is intent on tracking down and killing ape-leader Caesar (Andy Serkis, “LOTR”).
After things get decidedly personal, Caesar leaves his young son Cornelius (in a nice nod to the Roddy McDowell role in the original films) to find and kill The Colonel. So follows a “True Grit” style pursuit/revenge chase, made more similar to this analogy by the picking up of a waif-like mute girl (the excellent Amiah Miller). I found this to be a really emotional plot line, with Caesar torn between the animal drive of his revenge and his role as a leader to his whole community.
The film analogies continue as we take in a “Shining”-style winter hotel; a gritty Prisoner-of-War camp escape drama (“The Great Esc-ape”?); a barricades battle in the style of Helm’s Deep in “LOTR: The Two Towers”; and a full-on Coppola-style helicopter-based war sequence (“Ape-ocalypse now”, as graffiti in the film declares).
Once again, the mo-cap ability to express true emotions on the faces of the apes is mind-blowing, with Serkis again being outstanding as is Steve Zahn (“Dallas Buyer’s Club“) adding some (very funny) comic relief as “Bad Ape”.
While Woody Harrelson is not everyone’s cup of tea (including mine), here I found him to be actually very good (“SO EMOTIONAL”!) as the half crazed dictator forcing beings he sees as less worthy than his kind to build a wall. (That’s just SO familiar… think dammit… think….!). There’s a really cool plot twist in The Colonel’s character arc that I really didn’t see coming. Just so cool.
Another star of the film for me was Michael Giacchino’s music which is simply awesome. Starting with a superbly retro rendition of the 20th Century Fox theme (not top of my list: “The Simpson’s Movie” still holds that spot for me!) Giacchino decorates every scene with great themes and like all great film music some of it you barely notice. A dramatic telling by the Colonel of his back-story is accompanied by sonorous music that is similar in its power to James Horner’s classic “Electronic Battlefield” in “Patriot Games”: only when the scene finishes and the music stops do you appreciate how central it was to the emotion of the scene. (As I sat through all of the end-titles for the music I can also confirm that – despite all the odds – there is no “monkey” at the end!)
The script by “Dawn” collaborators Mark Bomback and (director) Matt Reeves is eventful and packs a dramatic punch particularly in the last half of the film. The talented Mr Reeves (who also directed “Cloverfield” and “Let Me In” and is in assigned to the next Ben Affleck outing as “The Batman”) directs with panache, never letting the foot come off the tension pedal.
On the downside, that “last half of the film” is still 70 minutes away, and whilst I appreciate a leisurely pace for properly setting characters and motivations in place, getting to those simply brilliant scenes set at “the border” is a bit of a slog that might have been tightened up and moved along a bit quicker. Also, while talking about editing, I would have personally ended the film about 90 seconds before they did.
I saw this in 3D, but the effects are subtle at best (although there is a nice binocular rangefinder view). In my opinion it’s not worth going out of your way to experience in 3D.
But overall I loved this movie. The film is chock full of visual delights for film lovers (one of my favourites being “Bedtime for Bonzo” – a nice historical film reference – written on the back of a soldier’s helmet). It’s an epic action film with a strong emotional core to the story that genuinely moved me. There may be other spin-off Planet of the Apes films to follow. But if they left this here, as a near-perfect trilogy, that would be absolutely fine by me.
We have moved a number of years forwards from the events of “Dawn” and society as we know it has crumbled away still further: even the “Holidays are Coming” Coke lorry is no longer in service, so things MUST be bad! We begin the film with the apes having a nice ‘Centre Parcs’ break when their reverie and cappuccinos are rudely interrupted by the attacking forces of “The Colonel” (Woody Harrelson, “Triple 9“, “Zombieland”). For The Colonel is intent on tracking down and killing ape-leader Caesar (Andy Serkis, “LOTR”).
After things get decidedly personal, Caesar leaves his young son Cornelius (in a nice nod to the Roddy McDowell role in the original films) to find and kill The Colonel. So follows a “True Grit” style pursuit/revenge chase, made more similar to this analogy by the picking up of a waif-like mute girl (the excellent Amiah Miller). I found this to be a really emotional plot line, with Caesar torn between the animal drive of his revenge and his role as a leader to his whole community.
The film analogies continue as we take in a “Shining”-style winter hotel; a gritty Prisoner-of-War camp escape drama (“The Great Esc-ape”?); a barricades battle in the style of Helm’s Deep in “LOTR: The Two Towers”; and a full-on Coppola-style helicopter-based war sequence (“Ape-ocalypse now”, as graffiti in the film declares).
Once again, the mo-cap ability to express true emotions on the faces of the apes is mind-blowing, with Serkis again being outstanding as is Steve Zahn (“Dallas Buyer’s Club“) adding some (very funny) comic relief as “Bad Ape”.
While Woody Harrelson is not everyone’s cup of tea (including mine), here I found him to be actually very good (“SO EMOTIONAL”!) as the half crazed dictator forcing beings he sees as less worthy than his kind to build a wall. (That’s just SO familiar… think dammit… think….!). There’s a really cool plot twist in The Colonel’s character arc that I really didn’t see coming. Just so cool.
Another star of the film for me was Michael Giacchino’s music which is simply awesome. Starting with a superbly retro rendition of the 20th Century Fox theme (not top of my list: “The Simpson’s Movie” still holds that spot for me!) Giacchino decorates every scene with great themes and like all great film music some of it you barely notice. A dramatic telling by the Colonel of his back-story is accompanied by sonorous music that is similar in its power to James Horner’s classic “Electronic Battlefield” in “Patriot Games”: only when the scene finishes and the music stops do you appreciate how central it was to the emotion of the scene. (As I sat through all of the end-titles for the music I can also confirm that – despite all the odds – there is no “monkey” at the end!)
The script by “Dawn” collaborators Mark Bomback and (director) Matt Reeves is eventful and packs a dramatic punch particularly in the last half of the film. The talented Mr Reeves (who also directed “Cloverfield” and “Let Me In” and is in assigned to the next Ben Affleck outing as “The Batman”) directs with panache, never letting the foot come off the tension pedal.
On the downside, that “last half of the film” is still 70 minutes away, and whilst I appreciate a leisurely pace for properly setting characters and motivations in place, getting to those simply brilliant scenes set at “the border” is a bit of a slog that might have been tightened up and moved along a bit quicker. Also, while talking about editing, I would have personally ended the film about 90 seconds before they did.
I saw this in 3D, but the effects are subtle at best (although there is a nice binocular rangefinder view). In my opinion it’s not worth going out of your way to experience in 3D.
But overall I loved this movie. The film is chock full of visual delights for film lovers (one of my favourites being “Bedtime for Bonzo” – a nice historical film reference – written on the back of a soldier’s helmet). It’s an epic action film with a strong emotional core to the story that genuinely moved me. There may be other spin-off Planet of the Apes films to follow. But if they left this here, as a near-perfect trilogy, that would be absolutely fine by me.