Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wounds (2019) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
Will's life isn't that complicated, he does his shifts at the bar, comes home to his girlfriend Carrie and in between he flirts with one of the regulars, Alicia.
Life in the bar is pretty predictable, everyone drinks too much and there's the occasional fight. On this particular evening things get even stranger. When Eric and his friends arrive already drunk Will leaves them be, he's more intrigued by the group of college kids who arrive looking quite out of place. Everything is turned upside down when Eric and his friends start fighting and bring the night to a quick end.
Clearing up the debris Will finds a phone belonging to one of the kids, he takes it home intending to put it in lost property the next day but before that happens he discovers some shocking images that lead him and Carrie down a terrifying rabbit hole.
Wounds has a nice idea behind it but once I came out of the film and started thinking about it I began realising that somehow it's all just a little vague. One of the things I like about films with sci-fi and supernatural leanings is finding out about where the "things" have come from, in Wounds they give you a hint about it but nothing solid to go on. Will and Carrie are only given the vaguest of clues about what is happening and it's surprisingly frustrating. It felt very much like we'd been handed film two in a series and somewhere along the line we'd be handed the first film as a prequel and watch it end as they drop the phone in the bar.
We're also probably subjected to a little too much drama. The beginning takes a while to get to the horror aspect of things. By the time it came out I was genuinely surprised. I'd assumed the horror tag was added at a stretch as it was coming across as a thriller more than everything else. Certainly the drama portion seemed to be unnecessary to most of what was going on by the end of the film.
Armie Hammer plays Will in the main role of the movie. Will's journey goes through a lot of stages, potentially too many. It does at least work in a sensible progression rather than jumping around. Hammer is convincing in all stages even if they do seem a little far fetched but I would personally have axed some of it.
Here's what I would have done... Zazie Beetz was great and I love her in everything I've seen, in my opinion she was underused in this film. I'd have given her the role of Carrie and expanded it slightly while cutting Alicia and her boyfriend out completely. Beetz's performance was great but there wasn't really anything to get her teeth into when it came to the horror side of everything. She had great chemistry with Hammer onscreen which I didn't get from his performances with Johnson. Johnson's performance in general felt underwhelming, Carrie wasn't going to be a likeable character but she could have been so much more.
Sound plays a very big part in the film. As I mentioned at the beginning creepy crawlies play a big part in Wounds, and even when they're not there you know they're there. It's incredibly well done because more than once I found myself getting twitchy that I could hear them in the background of scenes. The other noticeable sound related issue was around the phone, at one point Will answers the mobile and we're subjected to a loud piercing tone that cuts right through you. Again, fantastic use of sound, but in this instance while it makes you feel the unease of Will as it happens it is also painfully loud for anyone who is even slightly sensitive to things like that.
The film uses effects to create the swarms of bugs... although saying that, if they didn't then it's a very impressive bunch of cockroach wranglers they have on staff. The effects themselves aren't fantastic but when they happen it's so fast that it kind of works in the moment.
It might not be the best horror film but it certainly wasn't a bad watch. It comes out on Netflix tomorrow, I won't be seeing it again right away but it's definitely going onto the Watchlist for the future.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/wounds-movie-review.html
Life in the bar is pretty predictable, everyone drinks too much and there's the occasional fight. On this particular evening things get even stranger. When Eric and his friends arrive already drunk Will leaves them be, he's more intrigued by the group of college kids who arrive looking quite out of place. Everything is turned upside down when Eric and his friends start fighting and bring the night to a quick end.
Clearing up the debris Will finds a phone belonging to one of the kids, he takes it home intending to put it in lost property the next day but before that happens he discovers some shocking images that lead him and Carrie down a terrifying rabbit hole.
Wounds has a nice idea behind it but once I came out of the film and started thinking about it I began realising that somehow it's all just a little vague. One of the things I like about films with sci-fi and supernatural leanings is finding out about where the "things" have come from, in Wounds they give you a hint about it but nothing solid to go on. Will and Carrie are only given the vaguest of clues about what is happening and it's surprisingly frustrating. It felt very much like we'd been handed film two in a series and somewhere along the line we'd be handed the first film as a prequel and watch it end as they drop the phone in the bar.
We're also probably subjected to a little too much drama. The beginning takes a while to get to the horror aspect of things. By the time it came out I was genuinely surprised. I'd assumed the horror tag was added at a stretch as it was coming across as a thriller more than everything else. Certainly the drama portion seemed to be unnecessary to most of what was going on by the end of the film.
Armie Hammer plays Will in the main role of the movie. Will's journey goes through a lot of stages, potentially too many. It does at least work in a sensible progression rather than jumping around. Hammer is convincing in all stages even if they do seem a little far fetched but I would personally have axed some of it.
Here's what I would have done... Zazie Beetz was great and I love her in everything I've seen, in my opinion she was underused in this film. I'd have given her the role of Carrie and expanded it slightly while cutting Alicia and her boyfriend out completely. Beetz's performance was great but there wasn't really anything to get her teeth into when it came to the horror side of everything. She had great chemistry with Hammer onscreen which I didn't get from his performances with Johnson. Johnson's performance in general felt underwhelming, Carrie wasn't going to be a likeable character but she could have been so much more.
Sound plays a very big part in the film. As I mentioned at the beginning creepy crawlies play a big part in Wounds, and even when they're not there you know they're there. It's incredibly well done because more than once I found myself getting twitchy that I could hear them in the background of scenes. The other noticeable sound related issue was around the phone, at one point Will answers the mobile and we're subjected to a loud piercing tone that cuts right through you. Again, fantastic use of sound, but in this instance while it makes you feel the unease of Will as it happens it is also painfully loud for anyone who is even slightly sensitive to things like that.
The film uses effects to create the swarms of bugs... although saying that, if they didn't then it's a very impressive bunch of cockroach wranglers they have on staff. The effects themselves aren't fantastic but when they happen it's so fast that it kind of works in the moment.
It might not be the best horror film but it certainly wasn't a bad watch. It comes out on Netflix tomorrow, I won't be seeing it again right away but it's definitely going onto the Watchlist for the future.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/wounds-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Mar 8, 2020
When the trailers for this landed I knew I needed to see it, despite a large reservation it looked good and I was excited to see what they'd done with the story.
Cecilia has made the break from her abusive boyfriend and is trying to retake her life. It isn't easy when she's worried he'll be waiting for her or following the people she knows. That all changes when her sister tells her that he's been found dead, she can finally come out of hiding.
It's liberating, but she soon feels like his death might not have been as final as everyone thought. The creak of a floorboard, a noise in the next room, she's not alone. As terrible things start to befall her can she prove there's something to her claims or will everyone just think she's lost her mind?
I was not disappointed by this film, it really was a thrilling watch. It amazed me that you can achieve things like this on a (relatively) teeny tiny budget. I haven't seen or gone looking for details on how they did the invisible bits of the Invisible Man yet but my first instinct would be a morph suit and some wires (if you know please do let me know in the comments)... I'm guessing that inventing a real invisible suit was definitely out of their budget.
The effects never looked bad, there was one moment where it didn't entirely look real but that was during the very first physical interaction with him and I'm inclined to put it down to my surprise. I do want to go and see this again though so we'll see how it fairs then. I'm going to skip to another topic that crosses with this one...
The scares... normally I find horror films with obvious jump scares easier to deal with, it's a classic, and mainly predictable, device. There were a lot of times I was scared during the screening, but not in the way I expected. Those jump scares were there and I was feeling rather confident I'd do fine... I didn't do fine. They managed to scare me in a way I've never quite experienced before. Even the moment we see in the trailer where Cecilia is peering out of the attic got me. The build up to all these moments and the anticipation made them so much more than simple jumps and that really impressed me. The moments where he's revealed from behind his invisibility blend in really well with everything despite the fact your brain is telling you it isn't possible... or is it?!
I loved the camerawork. You'd pan out to an empty space and wonder if it was really empty, a doorway, an empty corridor... the way we zoom out to view the whole room with the realisation that he could be anywhere is an excellent way to make the audience as paranoid as she is.
When Cecilia makes her escape from Adrian she is taken in by James and his daughter Sydney, played by Aldis Hodge and Storm Reid. The dynamic the three of them have together is great, James is such a strong person when it comes to trying to help Cecilia get back to a normal life. That was a great thing to see and Hodge plays it perfectly. I'm also relieved that in the whole film we're never made to see a romance between the two, it's friendship and survival, nothing more.
Elisabeth Moss in the lead role had been my initial hesitation, I'm not really a fan. She was good, if she hadn't been I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie so much, but I felt like she managed to make Cecilia a little too manic at times. Occasionally that worked, and since I saw the film I've been wondering what sort of difference it would have made had she not been that way.
I liked that there were nods to things throughout the film, those little references were fun to look for but I wish they'd kept it out of the trailers. The bandaged man had no context in the trailer apart from a little flag for people who know previous versions. I can see trying to appeal to them with it but I'm not convinced the rest of the trailer would have anyway so what was the point?
The Invisible Man was much more that I had hoped for, it created so much suspense out of an empty room and some clever angles that I was just ever so slightly paranoid by the time I got home.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-invisible-man-movie-review.html
Cecilia has made the break from her abusive boyfriend and is trying to retake her life. It isn't easy when she's worried he'll be waiting for her or following the people she knows. That all changes when her sister tells her that he's been found dead, she can finally come out of hiding.
It's liberating, but she soon feels like his death might not have been as final as everyone thought. The creak of a floorboard, a noise in the next room, she's not alone. As terrible things start to befall her can she prove there's something to her claims or will everyone just think she's lost her mind?
I was not disappointed by this film, it really was a thrilling watch. It amazed me that you can achieve things like this on a (relatively) teeny tiny budget. I haven't seen or gone looking for details on how they did the invisible bits of the Invisible Man yet but my first instinct would be a morph suit and some wires (if you know please do let me know in the comments)... I'm guessing that inventing a real invisible suit was definitely out of their budget.
The effects never looked bad, there was one moment where it didn't entirely look real but that was during the very first physical interaction with him and I'm inclined to put it down to my surprise. I do want to go and see this again though so we'll see how it fairs then. I'm going to skip to another topic that crosses with this one...
The scares... normally I find horror films with obvious jump scares easier to deal with, it's a classic, and mainly predictable, device. There were a lot of times I was scared during the screening, but not in the way I expected. Those jump scares were there and I was feeling rather confident I'd do fine... I didn't do fine. They managed to scare me in a way I've never quite experienced before. Even the moment we see in the trailer where Cecilia is peering out of the attic got me. The build up to all these moments and the anticipation made them so much more than simple jumps and that really impressed me. The moments where he's revealed from behind his invisibility blend in really well with everything despite the fact your brain is telling you it isn't possible... or is it?!
I loved the camerawork. You'd pan out to an empty space and wonder if it was really empty, a doorway, an empty corridor... the way we zoom out to view the whole room with the realisation that he could be anywhere is an excellent way to make the audience as paranoid as she is.
When Cecilia makes her escape from Adrian she is taken in by James and his daughter Sydney, played by Aldis Hodge and Storm Reid. The dynamic the three of them have together is great, James is such a strong person when it comes to trying to help Cecilia get back to a normal life. That was a great thing to see and Hodge plays it perfectly. I'm also relieved that in the whole film we're never made to see a romance between the two, it's friendship and survival, nothing more.
Elisabeth Moss in the lead role had been my initial hesitation, I'm not really a fan. She was good, if she hadn't been I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie so much, but I felt like she managed to make Cecilia a little too manic at times. Occasionally that worked, and since I saw the film I've been wondering what sort of difference it would have made had she not been that way.
I liked that there were nods to things throughout the film, those little references were fun to look for but I wish they'd kept it out of the trailers. The bandaged man had no context in the trailer apart from a little flag for people who know previous versions. I can see trying to appeal to them with it but I'm not convinced the rest of the trailer would have anyway so what was the point?
The Invisible Man was much more that I had hoped for, it created so much suspense out of an empty room and some clever angles that I was just ever so slightly paranoid by the time I got home.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-invisible-man-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Transcendence (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
First time director and Academy award-winning cinematographer Wally Pfister (Inception, The Dark
Knight Trilogy) takes on an ambitious film both visually and thematically for his first attempt at the
director chair. And while he hits all the visual cues you would expect from someone who has worked
so closely with Christopher Nolan on several films, he does less so when it comes telling us a story
that works in the world that he is presenting to us on screen. And thus this film falls flat, muddled and
fragmented in its story.
Visually the film provides you with framing and movement that that is easy to follow and pleasing to
look at. Along with the score, the look of the film constantly feels like it is taking you somewhere grand
or eye-opening. However it never quite gets there as the passage of time is not clear which creates a
fragmented sense of reality.
Furthermore, because of the structure of the film, the viewer is expecting a form of payoff or definitive
stance from the message of the story. But instead the story falls flat upon itself by not clearly defining
the characters motivations on screen. That is not to say that the film is acted poorly, it is just that
there really isn’t any reason to believe the motivations of the characters because they were never
shown to us. We are supposed to believe that the love between Johnny Depp as Dr. Will Caster, the
leading artificial intelligence researcher and his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) is the reason why the plot is
developing. But we are never truly shown the reason why their love is so strong. Furthermore, when Dr.
Caster is shot to stop him from furthering his research, his own wife Evelyn barley even sheds a tear.
Why then would I believe her ridiculous motivations to follow a self-aware artificial intelligence that she
believes is her husband, down the rabbit hole for years without constant reassurance that it is in fact her
Husband, which we never really get any explanation of? Nor do we get any reassurance that she loves
him, other than an occasional had touching a computer screen. I get that people greave in different
ways, but not all ways work on advancing a story on film.
Perhaps the biggest disjointed story development is when the Caster’s close friend and colleague Max
(Paul Bettany) is kidnapped by extremists for two years and no one is looking for him. Furthermore,
when he reappears after being told that two years has passed, he is now trying to stop the evolution of
AI that he helped create without more than a mere sentence. The film keeps reminding us that people
fear what they don’t understand, which is right. I fear I don’t understand the motivation behind the
characters without being shown or explained what happened to them or why they are doing something.
As if this was not enough, at no real point did any of ancillary characters matter. Cillian Murphy
represents the government at large as the lone FBI agent in the film. But his purpose is meaningless as
he does nothing to stop anything suspicious until the final act. What is worse, is that he was brought in
to stop the extremist (that are mostly forgotten after the first act) but then sides with them to attempt
to stop the AI. The same AI he let grow out of control in the first place.
I am not even going to go into the “pod-people” plot as it seemed as a way to try to advance the story
to an ending. As if these good scientists, who are just trying to help the world, have crossed the line or
something. This, which Evelyn still doesn’t see a problem with and continues to allow for years until
Morgan Freeman shows up and tells her to get out of her situation and away from the AI. At which
point, she mulls it over for perhaps a day and decides she is done. Ugh. You have come this far with no
reason, why stop? Just keep going?
I, like most movie goers, am willing to suspend my disbelief as long as the reasons for what I am
watching on screen make sense in the world shown to me. A few scenes here or there that provided
explanation or reason why is should care about these characters would have been appreciated and
helped this movie be less disjointed and muddled. Because of this, I really cannot recommend this film
to anyone except those who want to think abstractly about AI. But be warned, thematically, there is no
clear stance on weather that is good or bad either.
Knight Trilogy) takes on an ambitious film both visually and thematically for his first attempt at the
director chair. And while he hits all the visual cues you would expect from someone who has worked
so closely with Christopher Nolan on several films, he does less so when it comes telling us a story
that works in the world that he is presenting to us on screen. And thus this film falls flat, muddled and
fragmented in its story.
Visually the film provides you with framing and movement that that is easy to follow and pleasing to
look at. Along with the score, the look of the film constantly feels like it is taking you somewhere grand
or eye-opening. However it never quite gets there as the passage of time is not clear which creates a
fragmented sense of reality.
Furthermore, because of the structure of the film, the viewer is expecting a form of payoff or definitive
stance from the message of the story. But instead the story falls flat upon itself by not clearly defining
the characters motivations on screen. That is not to say that the film is acted poorly, it is just that
there really isn’t any reason to believe the motivations of the characters because they were never
shown to us. We are supposed to believe that the love between Johnny Depp as Dr. Will Caster, the
leading artificial intelligence researcher and his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) is the reason why the plot is
developing. But we are never truly shown the reason why their love is so strong. Furthermore, when Dr.
Caster is shot to stop him from furthering his research, his own wife Evelyn barley even sheds a tear.
Why then would I believe her ridiculous motivations to follow a self-aware artificial intelligence that she
believes is her husband, down the rabbit hole for years without constant reassurance that it is in fact her
Husband, which we never really get any explanation of? Nor do we get any reassurance that she loves
him, other than an occasional had touching a computer screen. I get that people greave in different
ways, but not all ways work on advancing a story on film.
Perhaps the biggest disjointed story development is when the Caster’s close friend and colleague Max
(Paul Bettany) is kidnapped by extremists for two years and no one is looking for him. Furthermore,
when he reappears after being told that two years has passed, he is now trying to stop the evolution of
AI that he helped create without more than a mere sentence. The film keeps reminding us that people
fear what they don’t understand, which is right. I fear I don’t understand the motivation behind the
characters without being shown or explained what happened to them or why they are doing something.
As if this was not enough, at no real point did any of ancillary characters matter. Cillian Murphy
represents the government at large as the lone FBI agent in the film. But his purpose is meaningless as
he does nothing to stop anything suspicious until the final act. What is worse, is that he was brought in
to stop the extremist (that are mostly forgotten after the first act) but then sides with them to attempt
to stop the AI. The same AI he let grow out of control in the first place.
I am not even going to go into the “pod-people” plot as it seemed as a way to try to advance the story
to an ending. As if these good scientists, who are just trying to help the world, have crossed the line or
something. This, which Evelyn still doesn’t see a problem with and continues to allow for years until
Morgan Freeman shows up and tells her to get out of her situation and away from the AI. At which
point, she mulls it over for perhaps a day and decides she is done. Ugh. You have come this far with no
reason, why stop? Just keep going?
I, like most movie goers, am willing to suspend my disbelief as long as the reasons for what I am
watching on screen make sense in the world shown to me. A few scenes here or there that provided
explanation or reason why is should care about these characters would have been appreciated and
helped this movie be less disjointed and muddled. Because of this, I really cannot recommend this film
to anyone except those who want to think abstractly about AI. But be warned, thematically, there is no
clear stance on weather that is good or bad either.
Joe Wright’s 2011 film version of Hanna starring Saoirse Ronan, Cate Blanchett and Eric Bana is an odd movie. It isn’t bad. It just doesn’t work. The idea at its heart is great, as are some of the action sequences, there is just something over styled about it that is jarring. I’ve been back to it a few times to see if age helps, but it really doesn’t – Hanna the movie is an admirable failure.
So when Amazon announced they were resurrecting the character, the basic story and idea and the essential vibe of Hanna in 2019 as a series… I was pretty sceptical. I doubt to this day I would have watched it at all if I hadn’t stumbled across the trailer and been arrested by the presence of this young girl who had been cast in the main role. She looked wild and vulnerable at the same time, her eyes were piercing and something about her was just jumping off the screen. I went to IMDb as is my habit to find out who she was. Turns out her name was Esme Creed-Miles, the daughter of actors Samantha Morton and Charlie Creed-Miles.
Wow, yes, that made sense! I love Samantha Morton in anything – have done ever since she played Joanne Barnes in Cracker, aged 17. She has a ferocious beauty and edge of danger about her that is entirely feminine but also fearlessly strong and individual. Her roles have always been diverse, because she is capable of total power or intense vulnerability, sometimes in the same character, all laced with a focused intelligence that is quite rare. So, I had basically seen all of that in a two minute trailer staring a chip off the old block. Now I was excited to see it!
I wouldn’t say the set up of season one blew me away, but it did have enough going for it to keep me watching. Not as a binge watch, which usually indicates how much I am into something, but for sure as a steady desire to come back for more in time. Joel Kinnaman made a decent replacement as Erik, the father figure who teaches Hanna to survive, and Mireille Enos was doing a lovely job in the Cate Blanchett role as an ambiguous villain / ally. But it was all about Esme Creed-Miles, who was consistently delivering a performance of mesmerising quality – I could not take my eyes off her. As with the character she was playing there was some learning to be done in understanding the rules of this world, but she had obviously been trained well by a parent with huge experience in these things.
Season one ends with a tantalising cliffhanger, and there didn’t seem to be much of a wait to get back into it in season two, which felt more assured and more mature from the start. It came to me at a weird time in lockdown where I had no internet or means to watch anything I hadn’t downloaded already, which was a handful of films I’d already seen and season two of Hanna. I ended up watching each episode at least three times each, sometimes in a row, and sometimes going back… it just became a real companion to me in an odd way. I got hooked on it in a way I would find hard to describe – sometimes a show does that to us, even when objectively we know it isn’t the best, or most original, thing ever made.
It isn’t badly made by any means, but it is perhaps a little predictable at times. It has a high production standard, but still feels very much like TV and not a feature film in episodes. The action choreography is always great, as is the overall story arch. What is perhaps a little lacking is consistently strong dialogue, directing and supporting acting, especially when the cast of season two depends on a lot of teenagers, none of which have half the natural ability of Creed-Miles.
My main feeling about Hanna is to state I really enjoyed it, without overstating that it is any kind of genius, or is treading any new artistic ground. It is just a solid entertainment worth the time, and I will definitely be looking forward to season three. The entire project has a strong female core, and that is worth seeing in 2021. I suspect the main thing watching this will bring, however, is the genesis of a future superstar. Mark my words – Esme Creed-Miles just turned 21 and the film world is ready for the next Emma Stone, Jennifer Lawrence or… Samantha Morton.
So when Amazon announced they were resurrecting the character, the basic story and idea and the essential vibe of Hanna in 2019 as a series… I was pretty sceptical. I doubt to this day I would have watched it at all if I hadn’t stumbled across the trailer and been arrested by the presence of this young girl who had been cast in the main role. She looked wild and vulnerable at the same time, her eyes were piercing and something about her was just jumping off the screen. I went to IMDb as is my habit to find out who she was. Turns out her name was Esme Creed-Miles, the daughter of actors Samantha Morton and Charlie Creed-Miles.
Wow, yes, that made sense! I love Samantha Morton in anything – have done ever since she played Joanne Barnes in Cracker, aged 17. She has a ferocious beauty and edge of danger about her that is entirely feminine but also fearlessly strong and individual. Her roles have always been diverse, because she is capable of total power or intense vulnerability, sometimes in the same character, all laced with a focused intelligence that is quite rare. So, I had basically seen all of that in a two minute trailer staring a chip off the old block. Now I was excited to see it!
I wouldn’t say the set up of season one blew me away, but it did have enough going for it to keep me watching. Not as a binge watch, which usually indicates how much I am into something, but for sure as a steady desire to come back for more in time. Joel Kinnaman made a decent replacement as Erik, the father figure who teaches Hanna to survive, and Mireille Enos was doing a lovely job in the Cate Blanchett role as an ambiguous villain / ally. But it was all about Esme Creed-Miles, who was consistently delivering a performance of mesmerising quality – I could not take my eyes off her. As with the character she was playing there was some learning to be done in understanding the rules of this world, but she had obviously been trained well by a parent with huge experience in these things.
Season one ends with a tantalising cliffhanger, and there didn’t seem to be much of a wait to get back into it in season two, which felt more assured and more mature from the start. It came to me at a weird time in lockdown where I had no internet or means to watch anything I hadn’t downloaded already, which was a handful of films I’d already seen and season two of Hanna. I ended up watching each episode at least three times each, sometimes in a row, and sometimes going back… it just became a real companion to me in an odd way. I got hooked on it in a way I would find hard to describe – sometimes a show does that to us, even when objectively we know it isn’t the best, or most original, thing ever made.
It isn’t badly made by any means, but it is perhaps a little predictable at times. It has a high production standard, but still feels very much like TV and not a feature film in episodes. The action choreography is always great, as is the overall story arch. What is perhaps a little lacking is consistently strong dialogue, directing and supporting acting, especially when the cast of season two depends on a lot of teenagers, none of which have half the natural ability of Creed-Miles.
My main feeling about Hanna is to state I really enjoyed it, without overstating that it is any kind of genius, or is treading any new artistic ground. It is just a solid entertainment worth the time, and I will definitely be looking forward to season three. The entire project has a strong female core, and that is worth seeing in 2021. I suspect the main thing watching this will bring, however, is the genesis of a future superstar. Mark my words – Esme Creed-Miles just turned 21 and the film world is ready for the next Emma Stone, Jennifer Lawrence or… Samantha Morton.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Guns Akimbo (2019) in Movies
May 20, 2020
When I first heard about Guns Akimbo I was very interested in seeing it, when I next heard about it... well, it wasn't exactly a happy internet moment. Despite the actions of one person though you shouldn't write off something that so many people worked on, that meant I was still keen.
Miles likes to think of himself as a bit of an online warrior, really he's just trolling the trolls... and he's just annoyed the wrong people. Skizm are making a name for themselves in real-life gaming experiences, you can watch online as people battle to the death, and Miles' transgression means he's their next competitor.
The idea isn't a new one, there's Gamer and Nerve (I haven't seen the latter but it was mentioned to me), I personally get a few vibes from The Condemned too, but despite all of that it still feels like it has a fun twist to it.
Miles is a "mild mannered" nerd who gets thrown into the violent world of Skizm, well outside his comfort zone he's now tasked with killing their current champion before she kills him. There's shouldn't really be much of a contest because even with guns surgically attached to his hands he's still only a mild threat to Nix. In the real world an ill-matched pairing probably wouldn't work but with the extra story and some added movie magic in the form of dumb luck for Miles and it means we get an underdog battle that everyone enjoys.
The contest runs rampant through the streets and we mainly follow Miles on his journey with the occasional jump to fill in story. It sticks well to video game imagery and principles, I particularly liked the addition of health/1-up sound effects. Overall the filming of it is well presented and engaging with combat scenes changing pace for dramatic effect and cutting between angles to give you something to react to. There are a lot of Dutch angles used, which makes sense considering how much concussion and drugs are flying around. My only quibble with this would probably be that there seems to be every possible camera technique and angle used in the film, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but at times it feels a bit much.
Daniel Radcliffe is in the main role of Miles, and this is more of a personal drawback for me because I'm never entirely convinced he can act... but he is very amusing in this. In the beginning his inner nerd is on point when faced with Nix for the first time and the pair have a good, if slightly bizarre, rapport. I can deal with the fact that Miles has a lot of dumb luck, but at one point in the film he suddenly develops skills out of nowhere and that one annoyed me even though it made for a great scene.
As I said, the chemistry between Miles and Nix is very entertaining and Samara Weaving is a solid choice in casting. Nix is the baddie that you can't really hate and with her dark humour and the back story they weave in she's probably my favourite character. There were two things that leapt out at me, the Ready Or Note laugh and the Harley Quinn/Birds Of Prey drug snorting... now, BoP and Guns Akimbo must have been filmed at similar times so I can't see how it could have been copied but there's a moment that makes me instantly think of BoP, and with Weaving always momentarily confusing my brain when I see her it threw me for a loop.
There's a really well chosen group of songs throughout and they fit well with the tone of the film and the levels of energy needed... but as with everything in this review there's a little thing to pick at, and again, it's only tiny but it bugged me. One of the songs is used twice... technically nothing wrong with that, but I noticed it and it mildly annoyed me.
We've got two great leads who work well together and lots of hidden pop culture references that really help the film along. There's potential for the ultra violent moments to become a bit too much but with the effects, humour and editing I think it stops it from becoming anything too graphic. Guns Akimbo was pretty entertaining throughout and it's definitely one I can see myself rewatching.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/guns-akimbo-movie-review.html
Miles likes to think of himself as a bit of an online warrior, really he's just trolling the trolls... and he's just annoyed the wrong people. Skizm are making a name for themselves in real-life gaming experiences, you can watch online as people battle to the death, and Miles' transgression means he's their next competitor.
The idea isn't a new one, there's Gamer and Nerve (I haven't seen the latter but it was mentioned to me), I personally get a few vibes from The Condemned too, but despite all of that it still feels like it has a fun twist to it.
Miles is a "mild mannered" nerd who gets thrown into the violent world of Skizm, well outside his comfort zone he's now tasked with killing their current champion before she kills him. There's shouldn't really be much of a contest because even with guns surgically attached to his hands he's still only a mild threat to Nix. In the real world an ill-matched pairing probably wouldn't work but with the extra story and some added movie magic in the form of dumb luck for Miles and it means we get an underdog battle that everyone enjoys.
The contest runs rampant through the streets and we mainly follow Miles on his journey with the occasional jump to fill in story. It sticks well to video game imagery and principles, I particularly liked the addition of health/1-up sound effects. Overall the filming of it is well presented and engaging with combat scenes changing pace for dramatic effect and cutting between angles to give you something to react to. There are a lot of Dutch angles used, which makes sense considering how much concussion and drugs are flying around. My only quibble with this would probably be that there seems to be every possible camera technique and angle used in the film, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but at times it feels a bit much.
Daniel Radcliffe is in the main role of Miles, and this is more of a personal drawback for me because I'm never entirely convinced he can act... but he is very amusing in this. In the beginning his inner nerd is on point when faced with Nix for the first time and the pair have a good, if slightly bizarre, rapport. I can deal with the fact that Miles has a lot of dumb luck, but at one point in the film he suddenly develops skills out of nowhere and that one annoyed me even though it made for a great scene.
As I said, the chemistry between Miles and Nix is very entertaining and Samara Weaving is a solid choice in casting. Nix is the baddie that you can't really hate and with her dark humour and the back story they weave in she's probably my favourite character. There were two things that leapt out at me, the Ready Or Note laugh and the Harley Quinn/Birds Of Prey drug snorting... now, BoP and Guns Akimbo must have been filmed at similar times so I can't see how it could have been copied but there's a moment that makes me instantly think of BoP, and with Weaving always momentarily confusing my brain when I see her it threw me for a loop.
There's a really well chosen group of songs throughout and they fit well with the tone of the film and the levels of energy needed... but as with everything in this review there's a little thing to pick at, and again, it's only tiny but it bugged me. One of the songs is used twice... technically nothing wrong with that, but I noticed it and it mildly annoyed me.
We've got two great leads who work well together and lots of hidden pop culture references that really help the film along. There's potential for the ultra violent moments to become a bit too much but with the effects, humour and editing I think it stops it from becoming anything too graphic. Guns Akimbo was pretty entertaining throughout and it's definitely one I can see myself rewatching.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/guns-akimbo-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Greedy men + Dinosaurs = Lunch!
I’ve really had a rollercoaster of emotions on this one. As a general fan of dinosaurs running riot, since I saw the brilliant original in 1993, I was pretty disillusioned by the teaser trailer for this one: all over-the-top CGI. But as the lights dimmed and the Universal logo faded to ominous sonar sounds, the hairs stood up again and I thought J.A. Bayona (“A Monster Calls“) *might* deliver something really special here. Ultimately though, I left the theatre disappointed… but only slightly so.
With extreme topicality given what is happening on one of the Hawaiian islands at the moment, Isla Nublar – home to the now derelict Jurassic World theme park – is in serious trouble due to a volcanic eruption. Swayed by chaos theory expert Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a US senate committee decides to do…. absolutely nothing, letting the dinosaurs face re-extinction. This is much to the fury of our heroine from the first film, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas-Howard), who now runs a “Save the Dinosaurs” group. When all seems lost, help comes from the wallet of philanthropist Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell, “Babe”, “LA Confidential”) and his ops manager Eli Mills (Rafe Spall, “The Big Short“) who propose to fund a private rescue mission: a mission that requires the involvement of Velociraptor-wrangler Owen Grady (Chris Pratt, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Passengers“). But are their motives truly honourable?
The film has its moments, with some well-executed action scenes, some nice munching of bad people and a few scenes that are truly touching: shots of a brachiosauruses’ last moments is a memorable piece of cinema. But that said, the film is extremely patchy. An exciting (but not particularly logical) pre-title sequence seques into a very wordy and action-free first reel, headed up by Goldblum (always seated: did he have his legs chewed off by a raptor?) droning on (blah blah blah), no doubt for a huge fee but not for much purpose. The early part of the movie is good however at introducing new characters: specifically the geeky Franklin (Justice Smith) and the pre-requisite 2018 ‘Times Up” kick-ass female character Zia ( Daniella Pineda), who is actually very good. As a whole though it’s not terribly engaging, leading to even the reveal of the derelict theme park – which should have been a high point – falling somewhat flat.
The much trailered volcano scenes that follow are impressive but should have been left to impress in the film.
Things ratchet up again though when the action moves to the more confining environment of Lockwood’s estate, bringing in arch-villain Gunnar Eversol played by Toby Jones (“The Snowman“, “Atomic Blonde“), who really should have taken the stairs, and Lockwood’s granddaughter Maisie ( Isabella Sermon) who is excellent as the ‘child in peril’. Some of the character’s actions don’t make a lot of sense (laser-targeting Owen? Why?) but they do generate some memorable scenes, supported by Michael Giacchino’s stirring soundtrack.
So, it pretty much works as an action film, but in terms of character development it doesn’t go anywhere in particular: Claire and Owen come out in about the same condition as they came in. I was expecting something deeper from Bayona (with his “A Monster Calls” being my personal No. 2 film of last year) than just a ‘running and screaming’ film.
It’s also difficult to avoid the fact that after five of these films there’s nothing much new under the Isla Nublar sun. Some of the plot here is a retread of the genetic shenanigans of the last film, mixed with the ‘off-island’ antics of “The Lost World”. And most of the action scenes are just stripped and re-painted from the earlier films. For example, the “about to get eaten but saved by another dinosaur” trope so expertly done by Spielberg in the finale of JP1 is re-hashed not once but THREE times in this movie: leading to more yawning that excitement if I’m honest.
Overall though, it’s an effective summer blockbuster that mostly delivers on the thrills and should be a good crowd-pleaser. By the way, staying through the endless credits is worth it not just for getting the full force of Giacchino and Williams’ majestic themes: there is quite a nice “monkey” at the end, illustrating that gambling might involve more than just money in the future!
With extreme topicality given what is happening on one of the Hawaiian islands at the moment, Isla Nublar – home to the now derelict Jurassic World theme park – is in serious trouble due to a volcanic eruption. Swayed by chaos theory expert Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a US senate committee decides to do…. absolutely nothing, letting the dinosaurs face re-extinction. This is much to the fury of our heroine from the first film, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas-Howard), who now runs a “Save the Dinosaurs” group. When all seems lost, help comes from the wallet of philanthropist Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell, “Babe”, “LA Confidential”) and his ops manager Eli Mills (Rafe Spall, “The Big Short“) who propose to fund a private rescue mission: a mission that requires the involvement of Velociraptor-wrangler Owen Grady (Chris Pratt, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Passengers“). But are their motives truly honourable?
The film has its moments, with some well-executed action scenes, some nice munching of bad people and a few scenes that are truly touching: shots of a brachiosauruses’ last moments is a memorable piece of cinema. But that said, the film is extremely patchy. An exciting (but not particularly logical) pre-title sequence seques into a very wordy and action-free first reel, headed up by Goldblum (always seated: did he have his legs chewed off by a raptor?) droning on (blah blah blah), no doubt for a huge fee but not for much purpose. The early part of the movie is good however at introducing new characters: specifically the geeky Franklin (Justice Smith) and the pre-requisite 2018 ‘Times Up” kick-ass female character Zia ( Daniella Pineda), who is actually very good. As a whole though it’s not terribly engaging, leading to even the reveal of the derelict theme park – which should have been a high point – falling somewhat flat.
The much trailered volcano scenes that follow are impressive but should have been left to impress in the film.
Things ratchet up again though when the action moves to the more confining environment of Lockwood’s estate, bringing in arch-villain Gunnar Eversol played by Toby Jones (“The Snowman“, “Atomic Blonde“), who really should have taken the stairs, and Lockwood’s granddaughter Maisie ( Isabella Sermon) who is excellent as the ‘child in peril’. Some of the character’s actions don’t make a lot of sense (laser-targeting Owen? Why?) but they do generate some memorable scenes, supported by Michael Giacchino’s stirring soundtrack.
So, it pretty much works as an action film, but in terms of character development it doesn’t go anywhere in particular: Claire and Owen come out in about the same condition as they came in. I was expecting something deeper from Bayona (with his “A Monster Calls” being my personal No. 2 film of last year) than just a ‘running and screaming’ film.
It’s also difficult to avoid the fact that after five of these films there’s nothing much new under the Isla Nublar sun. Some of the plot here is a retread of the genetic shenanigans of the last film, mixed with the ‘off-island’ antics of “The Lost World”. And most of the action scenes are just stripped and re-painted from the earlier films. For example, the “about to get eaten but saved by another dinosaur” trope so expertly done by Spielberg in the finale of JP1 is re-hashed not once but THREE times in this movie: leading to more yawning that excitement if I’m honest.
Overall though, it’s an effective summer blockbuster that mostly delivers on the thrills and should be a good crowd-pleaser. By the way, staying through the endless credits is worth it not just for getting the full force of Giacchino and Williams’ majestic themes: there is quite a nice “monkey” at the end, illustrating that gambling might involve more than just money in the future!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated West Side Story (2021) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Very Good...but could have (SHOULD HAVE) been GREAT
One of the biggest disappointments in watching a Motion Picture is when a Film has all of the ingredients to be a GREAT film, but is knocked off this tier by one flaw - and sometimes - is knocked down to merely good by an egregious flaw.
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
More of the same
Who would have thought we would get to this? I certainly didn’t. After the right royal mess 20th Century Fox made of everyone’s favourite anti-hero, Deadpool, in X-Men Origins: Wolverine all those years ago, it felt like a solo outing would never be possible, never mind a sequel.
Deadpool senior went on to gross nearly $800million worldwide, impressive for an R-rated (15 certification) flick, and was an undisputed king of comic-book hero movies. Like Guardians of the Galaxy was for Marvel Studios, Deadpool was a huge gamble that paid off massively thanks to Ryan Reynold’s brilliant comic-timing and an origins story that wasn’t done to death. Naturally, a sequel was always on the cards. But are we looking at a sequel of Empire quality or Speed 2: Cruise Control?
Wisecracking mercenary Deadpool (Reynolds) is back, and this time he decides to joins force with three mutants – Bedlam (Terry Crews), Shatterstar (Lewis Tan) and Domino (Zazie Beets) – to protect a boy from the all-powerful Cable (Josh Brolin).
One-half of John Wick’s directing team, David Leitch, is thrust into the directing chair for Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller was unceremoniously dumped from the project due to creative differences with Ryan Reynolds (read into that what you will). Thankfully, he brings that trademark style that we again saw in Atomic Blonde to this sequel and with that comes plenty of stylised action and a neon/grey colour palate plus a Celine Dion number that’s just begging for parody status.
Surprisingly, that all works rather well for this film. Propped by another cracking performance from Ryan Reynolds who has really found his calling after years of mediocrity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he was absolutely born to play this role and his dry wit is given much more room to breathe this time around.
The rest of the cast are fine, if a little underdeveloped. Zazie Beets probably makes the most impact as mutant, Domino, but even she is a little underpowered when compared to the brilliant work the MCU has done on its heroes over the years. Josh Brolin (who must be getting paid rather handsomely this year) is great as Cable, though it is difficult to hear his voice and not immediately think of Thanos. T.J. Miller returns in a heavily reduced role as does Reynolds’ on-screen girlfriend Morena Baccarin who is criminally underused.
Story wise, it’s pretty much more of the same and that’s no bad thing. The fourth-wall breaking is as fresh as it felt two years ago and is cleverly used to hide the necessary exposition to bring the audience up-to-speed with what’s been happening in Deadpool-ville over the last couple of years.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members
The comedy hits more than it misses, though the constant quipps can be exhausting, and the action is filmed as confidently as you’d expect from the man who brought Keanu Reeves screaming into the 21st Century, but there is some incredibly poor CGI that is at odds with a movie costing over $100million. By incredibly poor, I don’t mean just a bit naff, I’m talking laughably bad.
The finale is vibrant, action-packed and as Deadpool himself says, CGI-filled, but it’s a little unoriginal and very much like its predecessor, though the inclusion of one particular character that I won’t spoil here is great fun to see.
There are also plenty of X-Men Easter eggs for fans to enjoy too. From characters showing up where you’d least expect them to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Stan Lee cameo, the film is full to the brim of in-references that only the most hardened of comic-book fans will notice on the first watch.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members. Reynolds, T.J. Miller, Leslie Uggams (Wade Wilson’s blind roommate Al) and Karan Soni (taxi driver Dopinder) are welcome returnees and ensure the film has a little heart, though not too much. After all, that wouldn’t be the Deadpool way.
Overall, Deadpool 2 is a confident sequel to one of the best comic-book movies there is. What it does right, it does very well indeed. The comedy, performances and action are all spot on. Unfortunately, there are some very poor special effects over the course of the film and in an effort to make everything bigger and badder, it occasionally feels like a mass of scenes put together to make a film. A worthy sequel, but not an Empire or Spider-Man 2 in this instance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/16/deadpool-2-review-more-of-the-same/#more-6342
Deadpool senior went on to gross nearly $800million worldwide, impressive for an R-rated (15 certification) flick, and was an undisputed king of comic-book hero movies. Like Guardians of the Galaxy was for Marvel Studios, Deadpool was a huge gamble that paid off massively thanks to Ryan Reynold’s brilliant comic-timing and an origins story that wasn’t done to death. Naturally, a sequel was always on the cards. But are we looking at a sequel of Empire quality or Speed 2: Cruise Control?
Wisecracking mercenary Deadpool (Reynolds) is back, and this time he decides to joins force with three mutants – Bedlam (Terry Crews), Shatterstar (Lewis Tan) and Domino (Zazie Beets) – to protect a boy from the all-powerful Cable (Josh Brolin).
One-half of John Wick’s directing team, David Leitch, is thrust into the directing chair for Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller was unceremoniously dumped from the project due to creative differences with Ryan Reynolds (read into that what you will). Thankfully, he brings that trademark style that we again saw in Atomic Blonde to this sequel and with that comes plenty of stylised action and a neon/grey colour palate plus a Celine Dion number that’s just begging for parody status.
Surprisingly, that all works rather well for this film. Propped by another cracking performance from Ryan Reynolds who has really found his calling after years of mediocrity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he was absolutely born to play this role and his dry wit is given much more room to breathe this time around.
The rest of the cast are fine, if a little underdeveloped. Zazie Beets probably makes the most impact as mutant, Domino, but even she is a little underpowered when compared to the brilliant work the MCU has done on its heroes over the years. Josh Brolin (who must be getting paid rather handsomely this year) is great as Cable, though it is difficult to hear his voice and not immediately think of Thanos. T.J. Miller returns in a heavily reduced role as does Reynolds’ on-screen girlfriend Morena Baccarin who is criminally underused.
Story wise, it’s pretty much more of the same and that’s no bad thing. The fourth-wall breaking is as fresh as it felt two years ago and is cleverly used to hide the necessary exposition to bring the audience up-to-speed with what’s been happening in Deadpool-ville over the last couple of years.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members
The comedy hits more than it misses, though the constant quipps can be exhausting, and the action is filmed as confidently as you’d expect from the man who brought Keanu Reeves screaming into the 21st Century, but there is some incredibly poor CGI that is at odds with a movie costing over $100million. By incredibly poor, I don’t mean just a bit naff, I’m talking laughably bad.
The finale is vibrant, action-packed and as Deadpool himself says, CGI-filled, but it’s a little unoriginal and very much like its predecessor, though the inclusion of one particular character that I won’t spoil here is great fun to see.
There are also plenty of X-Men Easter eggs for fans to enjoy too. From characters showing up where you’d least expect them to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Stan Lee cameo, the film is full to the brim of in-references that only the most hardened of comic-book fans will notice on the first watch.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members. Reynolds, T.J. Miller, Leslie Uggams (Wade Wilson’s blind roommate Al) and Karan Soni (taxi driver Dopinder) are welcome returnees and ensure the film has a little heart, though not too much. After all, that wouldn’t be the Deadpool way.
Overall, Deadpool 2 is a confident sequel to one of the best comic-book movies there is. What it does right, it does very well indeed. The comedy, performances and action are all spot on. Unfortunately, there are some very poor special effects over the course of the film and in an effort to make everything bigger and badder, it occasionally feels like a mass of scenes put together to make a film. A worthy sequel, but not an Empire or Spider-Man 2 in this instance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/16/deadpool-2-review-more-of-the-same/#more-6342