Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Battle: Los Angeles (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
War movies depicting a group of soldiers against overwhelming odds are nothing new. For generations, moviegoers have been treated to cinematic recreations as well as new scenarios of fighting units in combat. Usually these films follow a typical formula that includes the tough and gritty commanding officer, the naïve new soldier, the one with a woman and children waiting at home, and one who has difficulties with combat. In the new movie Battle: Los Angeles a new twist is given to the formulaic troops-in-combat picture which produces a mixed bag of results.
Aaron Eckhart stars as Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz; a 20 year Marine who, after losing men on a recent mission, has decided that it is time for him to leave and has filed his retirement paperwork from the corps. While completing a training exercise, Nantz and a squadron of Marines at Camp Pendleton are activated for what they are told is an evacuation mission in order to clear Santa Monica and other area residents from a swarm of meteors which are scheduled to hit just off the coast.
Nantz is assigned to a new commanding officer who, like the men in his unit, is wary of Nantz as many believe that he got his men killed in his last assignment. Despite the misgivings of the new lieutenant, he agrees that Nantz offers a wealth of experience and should be just fine for a simple evacuation assignment.
However during the mission briefing, the Marines are informed that the meteors that are hitting off the coast of major cities around the world contain metallic centers and that this is very likely an invasion from an unknown force. While the Marines are deploying an otherworldly fighting unit emerges destroying everything in their path as they moved inland from the coast line. Unsure what they are dealing with, the military decides to carpet bomb the city in order to contain the alien threat and give Nantz and his unit three hours to enter the combat zone and evacuate civilians from a police station.
While the movie is for the most part the standard soldiers-at-war film which substitute’s aliens for the usual enemy forces, the strength of the cast and the solid action and special effects help the movie overcome many of its shortcomings. There is little character development in the film and scenarios that were introduced in some of the characters’ backstories early in the film were given little to no chance to develop once the shooting started.
I also had an issue with some of the tactics in the film. While it may seem nitpicking there were a few scenes where the soldiers didn’t follow logical courses of engagement until later in the film. I have had only the most basic of combat instruction from my brief time in the Air Force, yet I can think of at least four scenarios in the film where the unit failed to use the most logical options available in their combat situation. Of course any film dealing with an alien invasion is sure to have plot holes and yes I can quibble about the Air Force waiting three hours to bomb a heavily overrun area when containment would have been priority one in not allowing a hostile force that much time to entrench itself.
That being said it was an interesting and entertaining film. The enemy was sufficiently mysterious and dangerous enough to hold my interest and had me rooting desperately for the troops to rise up and strike back at the enemy. Michelle Rodriguez does fine supporting work in the role of an Air Force Tech Sgt. who may have the key to turning the tide of the battle. Eckhart is solid as the gruff but caring staff sergeant is equally strong and his unit of young corporals, including R&B singer Ne-Yo, are believable.
Director Jonathan Liebesman knows the core intention of this film is and in doing so provides enough action to keep the audience entertained throughout. despite some issues with pacing and plot. While it doesn’t have the epic feel of Independence Day, Battle: Los Angeles is a film that provides enough entertainment to make it one of the better alien invasion films ever made and one that I certainly would not mind seeing revisited in a future sequel.
3.5 stars out of 5
Aaron Eckhart stars as Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz; a 20 year Marine who, after losing men on a recent mission, has decided that it is time for him to leave and has filed his retirement paperwork from the corps. While completing a training exercise, Nantz and a squadron of Marines at Camp Pendleton are activated for what they are told is an evacuation mission in order to clear Santa Monica and other area residents from a swarm of meteors which are scheduled to hit just off the coast.
Nantz is assigned to a new commanding officer who, like the men in his unit, is wary of Nantz as many believe that he got his men killed in his last assignment. Despite the misgivings of the new lieutenant, he agrees that Nantz offers a wealth of experience and should be just fine for a simple evacuation assignment.
However during the mission briefing, the Marines are informed that the meteors that are hitting off the coast of major cities around the world contain metallic centers and that this is very likely an invasion from an unknown force. While the Marines are deploying an otherworldly fighting unit emerges destroying everything in their path as they moved inland from the coast line. Unsure what they are dealing with, the military decides to carpet bomb the city in order to contain the alien threat and give Nantz and his unit three hours to enter the combat zone and evacuate civilians from a police station.
While the movie is for the most part the standard soldiers-at-war film which substitute’s aliens for the usual enemy forces, the strength of the cast and the solid action and special effects help the movie overcome many of its shortcomings. There is little character development in the film and scenarios that were introduced in some of the characters’ backstories early in the film were given little to no chance to develop once the shooting started.
I also had an issue with some of the tactics in the film. While it may seem nitpicking there were a few scenes where the soldiers didn’t follow logical courses of engagement until later in the film. I have had only the most basic of combat instruction from my brief time in the Air Force, yet I can think of at least four scenarios in the film where the unit failed to use the most logical options available in their combat situation. Of course any film dealing with an alien invasion is sure to have plot holes and yes I can quibble about the Air Force waiting three hours to bomb a heavily overrun area when containment would have been priority one in not allowing a hostile force that much time to entrench itself.
That being said it was an interesting and entertaining film. The enemy was sufficiently mysterious and dangerous enough to hold my interest and had me rooting desperately for the troops to rise up and strike back at the enemy. Michelle Rodriguez does fine supporting work in the role of an Air Force Tech Sgt. who may have the key to turning the tide of the battle. Eckhart is solid as the gruff but caring staff sergeant is equally strong and his unit of young corporals, including R&B singer Ne-Yo, are believable.
Director Jonathan Liebesman knows the core intention of this film is and in doing so provides enough action to keep the audience entertained throughout. despite some issues with pacing and plot. While it doesn’t have the epic feel of Independence Day, Battle: Los Angeles is a film that provides enough entertainment to make it one of the better alien invasion films ever made and one that I certainly would not mind seeing revisited in a future sequel.
3.5 stars out of 5
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Adrift (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hurricane Raymond has been upgraded to a category 5”
“Should we be worried” says Tami. Well, yes dear, you really should.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Jurassic Shark
Ah the shark attack movie. A genre that has over the years changed itself from impactful horror suspense thriller to cheesy, throwaway popcorn entertainment. Apart from when Steven Spielberg changed cinema forever with his 1975 masterpiece, Jaws, audiences have been given few treats in the decades that followed.
Deep Blue Sea was a tasteful homage to its forbearer, but even that was riddled in cliché and was much more of a brain-numbing creature feature than Jaws was. And then came Sharknado and its raft of dreadfully titled sequels. Look back through cinema history and you’ll see that sharks are big business in Hollywood.
Now, as we enter the final stages of 2018, Jason Statham stars in perhaps the most preposterous shark movie yet, yes, even more preposterous than Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! But sometimes preposterous can be fun. Is that the case here?
A massive creature attacks a deep-sea submersible, leaving it disabled and trapping the crew at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. With time running out, rescue diver Jonas Taylor (Statham) must save the crew and the ocean itself from an unimaginable threat – a 75-foot-long prehistoric shark known as the Megalodon.
Jon Turteltaub, who directed delicacies like National Treasure and Cool Runnings takes to The Meg like, well a duck to water. It’s filled with tantalising action sequences and Jason Statham spouting marine biology jargon including a scene in which the Hollywood star is shirtless whilst spouting marine biology jargon. What more could you want?
Quite a bit as it happens. Despite a solid opening act that sets up the dark humour of the film nicely, The Meg is a bit of a bore. Populated by bland characters, uninspiring CGI and plot holes so big they’d make the Marianas trench blush. It’s all a bit of a mess to be honest.
The Meg is one of a new breed of Hollywood blockbusters that has been made to pander to the new Chinese audience and while this has worked well for other high-budget movies like Pacific Rim, it doesn’t work quite as well here. Li Bingbing stars as marine biologist Suyin Zhang and whilst she performs well in her native tongue, her English-spoken scenes are stilted and lack any depth of emotion whatsoever.
In fact, outside of Statham, the rest of the cast are complete non-entities. Rainn Wilson provides some comic relief as a financial investor, but it’s all very B-movie and clearly not in the way it was intended. You see, when you know you have a ridiculous premise, the best thing to do is run with it and create the most insanely bizarre film in existence. Unfortunately, The Meg takes itself far too seriously and this makes it feel much longer than its running time would suggest. They could’ve gotten away with calling it ‘Jason Statham Shark Movie’ as that’ pretty much the premise in a nutshell.
It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib
At a cost just shy of $200million, you’d expect to have Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom levels of special effects. They actually cost around the same to produce. In truth, The Meg can’t hold a candle to its land-based prehistoric cousin. The CGI is passable at best and really dreadful at worst and this is a real shame. When the main selling point of your film is a 75-foot shark, you really need to get it spot on.
Besides a couple of cool shots, one of which is the featured image for this particular review (see the image at the top of the header banner), the cinematography is absolutely uninspired.
When you have a film that features so much ocean, there are a multitude of amazing things you could achieve with the shot choices. Unfortunately, none of them have been realised here.
Elsewhere, there is something a little more sinister afoot. Sharks already get a seriously bad reputation and this film does nothing to quash that. With many species now unfortunately endangered, films like The Meg could do more harm than good. It portrays all sharks as merciless killers – proficient and deadly. If it did want to be a serious shark attack flick, it should have relied less on goofy comedy and more on raising awareness for the creatures.
We’ve now had three ‘creature feature’ films thus far into 2018. Starting with Rampage earlier in the year, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom in June and now The Meg, and whilst each of them brings something unique to the table, The Meg sinks to the bottom of the seafloor. It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib. The Meg is a shark movie without any bite.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/08/11/the-meg-review-jurassic-shark/
Deep Blue Sea was a tasteful homage to its forbearer, but even that was riddled in cliché and was much more of a brain-numbing creature feature than Jaws was. And then came Sharknado and its raft of dreadfully titled sequels. Look back through cinema history and you’ll see that sharks are big business in Hollywood.
Now, as we enter the final stages of 2018, Jason Statham stars in perhaps the most preposterous shark movie yet, yes, even more preposterous than Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! But sometimes preposterous can be fun. Is that the case here?
A massive creature attacks a deep-sea submersible, leaving it disabled and trapping the crew at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. With time running out, rescue diver Jonas Taylor (Statham) must save the crew and the ocean itself from an unimaginable threat – a 75-foot-long prehistoric shark known as the Megalodon.
Jon Turteltaub, who directed delicacies like National Treasure and Cool Runnings takes to The Meg like, well a duck to water. It’s filled with tantalising action sequences and Jason Statham spouting marine biology jargon including a scene in which the Hollywood star is shirtless whilst spouting marine biology jargon. What more could you want?
Quite a bit as it happens. Despite a solid opening act that sets up the dark humour of the film nicely, The Meg is a bit of a bore. Populated by bland characters, uninspiring CGI and plot holes so big they’d make the Marianas trench blush. It’s all a bit of a mess to be honest.
The Meg is one of a new breed of Hollywood blockbusters that has been made to pander to the new Chinese audience and while this has worked well for other high-budget movies like Pacific Rim, it doesn’t work quite as well here. Li Bingbing stars as marine biologist Suyin Zhang and whilst she performs well in her native tongue, her English-spoken scenes are stilted and lack any depth of emotion whatsoever.
In fact, outside of Statham, the rest of the cast are complete non-entities. Rainn Wilson provides some comic relief as a financial investor, but it’s all very B-movie and clearly not in the way it was intended. You see, when you know you have a ridiculous premise, the best thing to do is run with it and create the most insanely bizarre film in existence. Unfortunately, The Meg takes itself far too seriously and this makes it feel much longer than its running time would suggest. They could’ve gotten away with calling it ‘Jason Statham Shark Movie’ as that’ pretty much the premise in a nutshell.
It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib
At a cost just shy of $200million, you’d expect to have Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom levels of special effects. They actually cost around the same to produce. In truth, The Meg can’t hold a candle to its land-based prehistoric cousin. The CGI is passable at best and really dreadful at worst and this is a real shame. When the main selling point of your film is a 75-foot shark, you really need to get it spot on.
Besides a couple of cool shots, one of which is the featured image for this particular review (see the image at the top of the header banner), the cinematography is absolutely uninspired.
When you have a film that features so much ocean, there are a multitude of amazing things you could achieve with the shot choices. Unfortunately, none of them have been realised here.
Elsewhere, there is something a little more sinister afoot. Sharks already get a seriously bad reputation and this film does nothing to quash that. With many species now unfortunately endangered, films like The Meg could do more harm than good. It portrays all sharks as merciless killers – proficient and deadly. If it did want to be a serious shark attack flick, it should have relied less on goofy comedy and more on raising awareness for the creatures.
We’ve now had three ‘creature feature’ films thus far into 2018. Starting with Rampage earlier in the year, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom in June and now The Meg, and whilst each of them brings something unique to the table, The Meg sinks to the bottom of the seafloor. It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib. The Meg is a shark movie without any bite.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/08/11/the-meg-review-jurassic-shark/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pacific Rim (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
“Today, we are cancelling the apocalypse” barks Idris Elba’s Stacker Pentecost in the trailer for Pacific Rim, but it’s over 90 minutes in when you finally hear him utter that attention grabbing phrase in a movie so big, it will make your head spin. But is it worth the migraine?
In short, the answer is yes. Director Guillermo del Toro has created a monster movie that utilises themes from many other ‘classic’ films, giving it an old fashioned feel, whilst still making it incredibly fresh and unique.
The story is simple, but don’t let it fool you into thinking it’ll be a one dimensional ride from A to B, Pacific Rim is much more than that, it’s a big blockbuster most definitely, but it also gets the subtleties right; it has a heart. We begin with a Shakespearean narration by Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnan) who tells us about a war breaking out between humans and the Kaiju, a race of monsters from deep within the Pacific Ocean, and the only way to beat them is to bring in the heavy metal. Enter the Jaeger program, a series of gigantic robots built across the world to defend Earth against the terrifying creatures.
Whilst piloting a Jaeger, you are connected with a co-pilot who can see memories in a ‘drift’, a kind of telepathy which can be deadly for those around you if you ‘chase the rabbit’ and trap yourself in a memory which has caused distress. After all, you’re piloting a giant robot with laser beams, swords and over 100 diesel engines in some cases.
Hunnan’s character Raleigh is distraught after an incident with a Kaiju, so much so that he leaves the program and thinks he will never have to return. Unfortunately, he is very wrong and after five years he is back and, to cut a long story short, is teamed up with a rookie pilot in the shape of Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi) to put an end to the forthcoming invasion.
The film borrows heavily from other similar-minded movies like Cloverfield and Transformers and there’s even a subtle nod to Jurassic Park, see if you can spot it, but yet del Toro always manages to make the film feel new, exciting and exceptionally fresh. Never before have we seen all of these regularly used components together, and it adds an interesting new dynamic to a film which could’ve been run of the mill.
Acting is a mixed bag; Idris Elba is excellent in his role as Pentecost and shows why he is like catnip to directors at the moment. Rinko Kikuchi is understated in her large role but plays the character well; we feel her innocence before her ‘drift virginity’ is taken. There is also one scene involving a younger version of Mori which is by far the most poignant in the entire film. For comic relief, of which there is a surprising amount in a film about the destruction of the globe, we have a del Toro staple, Ron Perlman, who plays a black market dealer roped in to help the cause and locate a Kaiju brain. Rob Kazinsky (True Blood) and Charlie Day (Horrible Bosses) also star, with the latter providing some of the films best lines.
The special effects are truly exceptional, in films this big there can sometimes be a few shoddy scenes to cut costs in the hope that audiences don’t notice but not here; everything is stunning – from the computer generated Jaegers and the computer generated Kaiju, to the CGI recreations of Hong Kong and other destinations across the globe, it truly is beautiful to watch. Couple this with an absolutely mind-blowing soundtrack and each frame has either a tantalising musical score or a piece of eye-popping visual.
However, after an initially exciting opening, we are treated to a first-act lull from which the film takes a good 30 minutes to recover from, this being the most disappointing thing in the entire movie. The lull is used to good effect though, as we learn more about the lead characters and the Jaeger program itself, but 30 minutes in a 2 hour film is a little too long to wait for the action to restart.
Overall, Pacific Rim is everything a big summer blockbuster should be, it has beautiful special effects, excellent performances and a decent story mixed with a superb soundtrack. We’ve seen it all before, but in separate films, so to put everything together was a brave move on behalf of del Toro and it works brilliantly. It’s a little too long and the first-act lull is disappointing, but in the end it all ties together nicely as pure popcorn entertainment.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/07/13/pacific-rim-review-2013/
In short, the answer is yes. Director Guillermo del Toro has created a monster movie that utilises themes from many other ‘classic’ films, giving it an old fashioned feel, whilst still making it incredibly fresh and unique.
The story is simple, but don’t let it fool you into thinking it’ll be a one dimensional ride from A to B, Pacific Rim is much more than that, it’s a big blockbuster most definitely, but it also gets the subtleties right; it has a heart. We begin with a Shakespearean narration by Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnan) who tells us about a war breaking out between humans and the Kaiju, a race of monsters from deep within the Pacific Ocean, and the only way to beat them is to bring in the heavy metal. Enter the Jaeger program, a series of gigantic robots built across the world to defend Earth against the terrifying creatures.
Whilst piloting a Jaeger, you are connected with a co-pilot who can see memories in a ‘drift’, a kind of telepathy which can be deadly for those around you if you ‘chase the rabbit’ and trap yourself in a memory which has caused distress. After all, you’re piloting a giant robot with laser beams, swords and over 100 diesel engines in some cases.
Hunnan’s character Raleigh is distraught after an incident with a Kaiju, so much so that he leaves the program and thinks he will never have to return. Unfortunately, he is very wrong and after five years he is back and, to cut a long story short, is teamed up with a rookie pilot in the shape of Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi) to put an end to the forthcoming invasion.
The film borrows heavily from other similar-minded movies like Cloverfield and Transformers and there’s even a subtle nod to Jurassic Park, see if you can spot it, but yet del Toro always manages to make the film feel new, exciting and exceptionally fresh. Never before have we seen all of these regularly used components together, and it adds an interesting new dynamic to a film which could’ve been run of the mill.
Acting is a mixed bag; Idris Elba is excellent in his role as Pentecost and shows why he is like catnip to directors at the moment. Rinko Kikuchi is understated in her large role but plays the character well; we feel her innocence before her ‘drift virginity’ is taken. There is also one scene involving a younger version of Mori which is by far the most poignant in the entire film. For comic relief, of which there is a surprising amount in a film about the destruction of the globe, we have a del Toro staple, Ron Perlman, who plays a black market dealer roped in to help the cause and locate a Kaiju brain. Rob Kazinsky (True Blood) and Charlie Day (Horrible Bosses) also star, with the latter providing some of the films best lines.
The special effects are truly exceptional, in films this big there can sometimes be a few shoddy scenes to cut costs in the hope that audiences don’t notice but not here; everything is stunning – from the computer generated Jaegers and the computer generated Kaiju, to the CGI recreations of Hong Kong and other destinations across the globe, it truly is beautiful to watch. Couple this with an absolutely mind-blowing soundtrack and each frame has either a tantalising musical score or a piece of eye-popping visual.
However, after an initially exciting opening, we are treated to a first-act lull from which the film takes a good 30 minutes to recover from, this being the most disappointing thing in the entire movie. The lull is used to good effect though, as we learn more about the lead characters and the Jaeger program itself, but 30 minutes in a 2 hour film is a little too long to wait for the action to restart.
Overall, Pacific Rim is everything a big summer blockbuster should be, it has beautiful special effects, excellent performances and a decent story mixed with a superb soundtrack. We’ve seen it all before, but in separate films, so to put everything together was a brave move on behalf of del Toro and it works brilliantly. It’s a little too long and the first-act lull is disappointing, but in the end it all ties together nicely as pure popcorn entertainment.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/07/13/pacific-rim-review-2013/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Six Minutes to Midnight (2021) in Movies
Apr 4, 2021 (Updated Apr 4, 2021)
Historical story (Potential for a great film) (1 more)
Judi Dench
B-grade spy caper antics (1 more)
Some ridiculous plot-points
A "39 Steps-esque" thriller that doesn't match its potential
In "Six Minutes to Midnight", it's the summer of 1939 (so we are in a parallel time-flow here with the events of "The Dig"). A private girl's school - the Augusta Victoria College in Bexhill-on-Sea - is run with loving care by the spinster Miss Rocholl (Judi Dench). But the 'finishing school' is unusual, in that all its teenage students are German. Indeed, they are the offspring of prominent Nazis.
When half-German English teacher Thomas Miller (Eddie Izzard) applies for a suddenly vacant position, he is taken on to share the teaching duties with Rocholl and Ilse (Carla Juri). But in snooping into the activities going on there, he finds mystery and danger.
Positives:
This is a fascinating premise for a movie that will appeal to an older generation, along the lines of "They don't make them like this anymore". It has elements of the 'good guy on the run' that struck parallels with "The 39 Steps" for me.
It's great that the school is all based on historical fact. Miss Rochol did indeed run the school, as a part of a plan to infiltrate British high-society with pro-Nazi sympathies ahead of an invasion. In real-life, one of the pupils was the god-daughter of Heinrich Himmler and one - Bettina von Ribbentrop - was the daughter of the German foreign minister.
After a comic "Family Guy"-style set of production logos to kick off with (for a full one and a half minutes!!), the pre-title sequence is a superb scene-setter. What exactly is going on here? A frantic scrabbling in a bookcase. A pier-end disappearance. The school badge (a genuine reproduction!) with its Union flag and Nazi Swastika insignia. The girls performing a ballet-like ritual on the beach with batons. (This looks to be a cracker, I thought).
Judi Dench. Superb as always.
Chris Seager does the cinematography, and impressively so. Most of Seager's CV has been TV work, so it must be delightful to be given the breadth of a cinema screen to capture landscapes like this.
I like the clever title: "Six Minutes to Midnight". I assumed it was intended solely to reflect the imminence of war. But it actually has another meaning entirely.
Negatives:
For me, was a highly frustrating film. All of the great credibility and atmosphere it builds up in the first 30 minutes, it then squanders by diving off into sub-Hitchcock spy capers.
Izzard becomes a 'man on the run', and doesn't seem credible at that. (I appreciate the irony of this statement given that this is the man who ran 32 marathons in 31 days for charity!) But Izzard is built for distance and not for speed, and some of the police chase scenes in the movie strain credibility to breaking point. Another actor might have been able to pull this off better.
There's a lack of continuity in the film: was it perhaps cut down from a much longer running time? At one point, Miller is a wanted murderer with his face plastered on the front pages. The next, kindly bus driver Charlie (Jim Broadbent) is unaccountably aiding him and Rochol seems to have assumed his innocence in later scenes.
Various spy caper clichés are mined to extreme - including those old classics 'swerve to avoid bullets'; 'gun shot but different gun'; and 'shot guy seems to live forever'. And there are double-agent 'twists' occurring that are utterly predictable.
A very specific continuity irritation for me was in an 'aircraft landing' scene. Markers are separated by nine paces (I went back and counted them!) yet a view from a plane shows them a 'runway-width' apart. This might have escaped scrutiny were it shown just once. But no... we have ground shot; air shot; ground shot; air shot..... repeatedly!
Summary thoughts: This was one of the cinema trailers that most appealed to me over a year ago, in those heady days in the sunlit-uplands of life before Covid-19. It's a movie that showed a great deal of promise, since the history is fascinating. And there is probably a really great TV serial in here: showing the 'alternate history' consequences of these high-society German girls penetrating British society and steering the war in a different direction (screenplay idea (C) RJ Mann!) But the potential is squandered with a non-credible spy caper bolted onto the side.
So with "Six Minutes to Midnight", Downton-director Andy Goddard has made a perfectly watchable 'rainy Sunday afternoon' film, that I enjoyed in part for its 'old-school' quirkiness. But it's frustrating that all the promise couldn't be transitioned into a more satisfying movie.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/six-minutes-to-midnight-a-39-steps-esque-thriller-but-not-quite-pulling-it-off/. Thanks).
When half-German English teacher Thomas Miller (Eddie Izzard) applies for a suddenly vacant position, he is taken on to share the teaching duties with Rocholl and Ilse (Carla Juri). But in snooping into the activities going on there, he finds mystery and danger.
Positives:
This is a fascinating premise for a movie that will appeal to an older generation, along the lines of "They don't make them like this anymore". It has elements of the 'good guy on the run' that struck parallels with "The 39 Steps" for me.
It's great that the school is all based on historical fact. Miss Rochol did indeed run the school, as a part of a plan to infiltrate British high-society with pro-Nazi sympathies ahead of an invasion. In real-life, one of the pupils was the god-daughter of Heinrich Himmler and one - Bettina von Ribbentrop - was the daughter of the German foreign minister.
After a comic "Family Guy"-style set of production logos to kick off with (for a full one and a half minutes!!), the pre-title sequence is a superb scene-setter. What exactly is going on here? A frantic scrabbling in a bookcase. A pier-end disappearance. The school badge (a genuine reproduction!) with its Union flag and Nazi Swastika insignia. The girls performing a ballet-like ritual on the beach with batons. (This looks to be a cracker, I thought).
Judi Dench. Superb as always.
Chris Seager does the cinematography, and impressively so. Most of Seager's CV has been TV work, so it must be delightful to be given the breadth of a cinema screen to capture landscapes like this.
I like the clever title: "Six Minutes to Midnight". I assumed it was intended solely to reflect the imminence of war. But it actually has another meaning entirely.
Negatives:
For me, was a highly frustrating film. All of the great credibility and atmosphere it builds up in the first 30 minutes, it then squanders by diving off into sub-Hitchcock spy capers.
Izzard becomes a 'man on the run', and doesn't seem credible at that. (I appreciate the irony of this statement given that this is the man who ran 32 marathons in 31 days for charity!) But Izzard is built for distance and not for speed, and some of the police chase scenes in the movie strain credibility to breaking point. Another actor might have been able to pull this off better.
There's a lack of continuity in the film: was it perhaps cut down from a much longer running time? At one point, Miller is a wanted murderer with his face plastered on the front pages. The next, kindly bus driver Charlie (Jim Broadbent) is unaccountably aiding him and Rochol seems to have assumed his innocence in later scenes.
Various spy caper clichés are mined to extreme - including those old classics 'swerve to avoid bullets'; 'gun shot but different gun'; and 'shot guy seems to live forever'. And there are double-agent 'twists' occurring that are utterly predictable.
A very specific continuity irritation for me was in an 'aircraft landing' scene. Markers are separated by nine paces (I went back and counted them!) yet a view from a plane shows them a 'runway-width' apart. This might have escaped scrutiny were it shown just once. But no... we have ground shot; air shot; ground shot; air shot..... repeatedly!
Summary thoughts: This was one of the cinema trailers that most appealed to me over a year ago, in those heady days in the sunlit-uplands of life before Covid-19. It's a movie that showed a great deal of promise, since the history is fascinating. And there is probably a really great TV serial in here: showing the 'alternate history' consequences of these high-society German girls penetrating British society and steering the war in a different direction (screenplay idea (C) RJ Mann!) But the potential is squandered with a non-credible spy caper bolted onto the side.
So with "Six Minutes to Midnight", Downton-director Andy Goddard has made a perfectly watchable 'rainy Sunday afternoon' film, that I enjoyed in part for its 'old-school' quirkiness. But it's frustrating that all the promise couldn't be transitioned into a more satisfying movie.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/six-minutes-to-midnight-a-39-steps-esque-thriller-but-not-quite-pulling-it-off/. Thanks).
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Hollow Ones: the Blackwood Tapes Vol. 1 in Books
Sep 9, 2020
Paranormal and occult (1 more)
Great story
A filler character with potential (1 more)
Overly used details
[This is the ARC version - - - John Silence was renamed Hugo Blackwood in the final version]
I've grown up watching a lot of Guillermo Del Toro's movies. One of my favorites that he was the screenwriter for is Hellboy. Yet, I spent almost four months at the beginning of this year playing the video game Death Stranding, which features Del Toro as a main character. I bring the former and latter up because they rank very high on some of my favorite things list, and I believe that The Hollow Ones is one of the best books I have read in a long time. This is one of those few rare books which I wish I could live in as a lover of the paranormal/occult.
Odessa Hardwicke - - - an FBI greenhorn - - - is ordering dinner with her partner, Walt Leppo, when they get a phone call that someone is on a shooting rampage from an airplane. (Hardwicke looks up to Leppo as a father figure, and he sees her as a daughter) We learn that the two have been on a corruption case involving a politician's former deputy chief of staff- - - they suddenly realize that the airplane may be tied to this man, and he may also be the one going on the killing spree. The pair speed off to the deputy chief's home in fear that he may be going to kill his recently divorced wife, who was waiting to receive not only their huge house, but a nice lump sum of money.
When Hardwicke and Leppo get to the house, after stopping the deputy chief, Hardwicke suddenly finds herself holding a gun on her partner while he tries to murder a little girl. She has only two choices to make: a) kill her partner, and face the backlash of shooting an agent in the line-of-duty or b) let him kill the girl and possibly herself- - - Hardwicke chooses to shoot and kill Leppo. Immediately after this, she sees something like a heatwave leave Leppo's body and disappear. When other agents arrive to the crime scene, Hardwicke keeps this information to herself, wanting to know instead why her partner suddenly turned into a murderer. Pending an investigation, Hardwicke is put on desk duty, including errands that the Bureau doesn't want to deal with. Enter Agent Earl Solomon.
On order by the FBI, Hardwicke is sent to clean out an office used by a retired agent that was hospitalized for a stroke. She takes his things to the hospital (not knowing what to do with them), and while discussing her plight with him and revealing that she had seen a sort of heat vapor leave Leppo's body, Solomon quickly tells her to write a letter to a man named John Silence, and place it in a nearly invisible mailbox in the Wallstreet area of New York.
From this point on, the book really begins to take off, and the fact that the authors brought in the religion of Palo (the Mayombe branch) is fascinating for anyone interested in the occult. The buildup of the story is really enjoyable, too, especially when Hardwicke decides to write and deliver the letter.
Readers also get to see Solomon's story from years before when he was one of the first African Americans to be recruited into the FBI. We see Solomon being sent to Mississippi in 1962, where a number of lynchings of African Americans have occurred, but the FBI hasn't been called in until the last murder: a lynching of a white man. Solomon can't help but question if he was only brought on this case because he is African American. Ignoring the bigotry, Solomon does his job, and comes across a young boy who is possessed by some sort of demon. The boy tells Solomon to bring him Silence, a man who Solomon has never heard of.
John Silence is also an interesting character; a nearly 500-year-old occult detective. We also get to see flashbacks of his life in the 1500's, learning about his occupation as a barrister, and his first encounter with the paranormal- - - something that has plagued him since- - - as well as his teacher in the occult. In the chapters of today, Silence is a mysterious figure, and carries himself much like a modern day Sherlock Holmes. Even by the end of the book, readers are still left with questions over what Silence has been through in the last 500 years. He, having only met Solomon 58 years prior- - - the two have a huge history together. Proven by the fact of how many 'cases' Solomon has hidden in his private records room that the two have embarked on together.
The Hollow Ones is a very enjoyable book, but I could only give it 3 out of 5 stars. The rating is because the authors- - - Del Toro and Hogan- - - used so many details, like the make and model of a passing vehicle, that it would interrupt the flow of the story, being bogged down by it. One other problem that I had was with the character Laurena; she was a 'filler character' (a character that is brought in just to make something happen in the story), but she was written to be Hardwicke's best friend. This was highly unbelievable with the two times she showed up in the story.
I really, really hope that Del Toro and Hogan decide to make this a series, and that the rest of the books show us Solomon's and Silence's journeys together! I highly recommend this book to people who love the paranormal/occult crime books.
I've grown up watching a lot of Guillermo Del Toro's movies. One of my favorites that he was the screenwriter for is Hellboy. Yet, I spent almost four months at the beginning of this year playing the video game Death Stranding, which features Del Toro as a main character. I bring the former and latter up because they rank very high on some of my favorite things list, and I believe that The Hollow Ones is one of the best books I have read in a long time. This is one of those few rare books which I wish I could live in as a lover of the paranormal/occult.
Odessa Hardwicke - - - an FBI greenhorn - - - is ordering dinner with her partner, Walt Leppo, when they get a phone call that someone is on a shooting rampage from an airplane. (Hardwicke looks up to Leppo as a father figure, and he sees her as a daughter) We learn that the two have been on a corruption case involving a politician's former deputy chief of staff- - - they suddenly realize that the airplane may be tied to this man, and he may also be the one going on the killing spree. The pair speed off to the deputy chief's home in fear that he may be going to kill his recently divorced wife, who was waiting to receive not only their huge house, but a nice lump sum of money.
When Hardwicke and Leppo get to the house, after stopping the deputy chief, Hardwicke suddenly finds herself holding a gun on her partner while he tries to murder a little girl. She has only two choices to make: a) kill her partner, and face the backlash of shooting an agent in the line-of-duty or b) let him kill the girl and possibly herself- - - Hardwicke chooses to shoot and kill Leppo. Immediately after this, she sees something like a heatwave leave Leppo's body and disappear. When other agents arrive to the crime scene, Hardwicke keeps this information to herself, wanting to know instead why her partner suddenly turned into a murderer. Pending an investigation, Hardwicke is put on desk duty, including errands that the Bureau doesn't want to deal with. Enter Agent Earl Solomon.
On order by the FBI, Hardwicke is sent to clean out an office used by a retired agent that was hospitalized for a stroke. She takes his things to the hospital (not knowing what to do with them), and while discussing her plight with him and revealing that she had seen a sort of heat vapor leave Leppo's body, Solomon quickly tells her to write a letter to a man named John Silence, and place it in a nearly invisible mailbox in the Wallstreet area of New York.
From this point on, the book really begins to take off, and the fact that the authors brought in the religion of Palo (the Mayombe branch) is fascinating for anyone interested in the occult. The buildup of the story is really enjoyable, too, especially when Hardwicke decides to write and deliver the letter.
Readers also get to see Solomon's story from years before when he was one of the first African Americans to be recruited into the FBI. We see Solomon being sent to Mississippi in 1962, where a number of lynchings of African Americans have occurred, but the FBI hasn't been called in until the last murder: a lynching of a white man. Solomon can't help but question if he was only brought on this case because he is African American. Ignoring the bigotry, Solomon does his job, and comes across a young boy who is possessed by some sort of demon. The boy tells Solomon to bring him Silence, a man who Solomon has never heard of.
John Silence is also an interesting character; a nearly 500-year-old occult detective. We also get to see flashbacks of his life in the 1500's, learning about his occupation as a barrister, and his first encounter with the paranormal- - - something that has plagued him since- - - as well as his teacher in the occult. In the chapters of today, Silence is a mysterious figure, and carries himself much like a modern day Sherlock Holmes. Even by the end of the book, readers are still left with questions over what Silence has been through in the last 500 years. He, having only met Solomon 58 years prior- - - the two have a huge history together. Proven by the fact of how many 'cases' Solomon has hidden in his private records room that the two have embarked on together.
The Hollow Ones is a very enjoyable book, but I could only give it 3 out of 5 stars. The rating is because the authors- - - Del Toro and Hogan- - - used so many details, like the make and model of a passing vehicle, that it would interrupt the flow of the story, being bogged down by it. One other problem that I had was with the character Laurena; she was a 'filler character' (a character that is brought in just to make something happen in the story), but she was written to be Hardwicke's best friend. This was highly unbelievable with the two times she showed up in the story.
I really, really hope that Del Toro and Hogan decide to make this a series, and that the rest of the books show us Solomon's and Silence's journeys together! I highly recommend this book to people who love the paranormal/occult crime books.
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 Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Erika (17788 KP) rated Loki - Season 1 in TV
Jul 16, 2021 (Updated Jul 16, 2021)
I’ll stick with Loki’s original story-arc.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Loki, featuring the return of Tom Hiddleston to the MCU, has escaped with the tesseract, and is subsequently caught by the TVA. He agrees to help Owen Wilson’s Mobius track down a variant that is conveniently a version of himself. What ensues is a painful setup for Ironman with Magic… oh, sorry, Dr. Strange and the Multiverse of Madness.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.