Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Motherless Brooklyn (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2021
A little too slow and self-indulgent for my tastes
There is no denying that Edward Norton is a talented performer. Ever since he burst onto the scene with his Oscar nominated performance in PRIMAL FEAR, he has been a presence both on and off the screen as an Actor, Writer, Producer and Director.
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Apollo 11 (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
This extraordinary documentary exploring the build up, launch and landing of the most famous mission in NASA history, and arguably the pinnacle of human space exploration to date, is a mesmeric and unique experience like no other factual film you have ever seen. You can find it tucked away on Netflix, and I urge you to do so if you ever found yourself wondering for one minute about the moon landing of ’69 and what all the fuss was about.
Director Todd Douglas Miller makes the bold choice to do away with all narrative, cutaway interviews and commentaries, and just shows you what happened in gorgeous detail, with a kind of retro super 8 camera vibe, and a very evocative sountrack. The degree of unseen footage of the entire project is jaw-dropping, especially if there is something of a science or even science fiction geek within you.
Some of what you see and hear is, of course, so iconic that when you see or hear them you feel a sense of deja vu that feels like a dream in the context of the full story. The rest is so amazing to contemplate as something that humanity actually achieved that it is tempting to see it as an odd retro sci-fi movie with quite bad effects and a dull plot; the control room, suits, the rocket itself, the sense of endless patience, anticipation and waiting – you just wouldn’t believe it would work if it was a fiction.
At several points I found myself reminding myself that it wasn’t a fiction, and then marvelling at the entire world that existed at the end of the 60s, and how so essentially different it was, and how ancient it feels now. I wasn’t quite born when all this happened, but it has been very much in my imagination all my life. I wanted to be an astronaut, as did most other kids in the Star Wars era of the late 70s and early 80s, and I only really gave up when I realised that meant being as smart and dedicated as Neil Armstrong and not as reckless and cool as Han Solo. Now I am older, I can appreciate things about it that I never could, and in understanding Human history, it is a riveting chapter.
What we see in this film is how detail and hard work and maths and safety precautions and thousands of team members made this happen. Every nut and bolt, and every drop of sweat and fuel is counted, recounted and considered. At times it seems mundane and without drama, boring even, and then the sheer scale of acheivement and wonder overtakes you as you catch yourself realising how incredible it was that any of this was done at all.
There is no political overtone or background here, no conspiracy theory, no other voice questioning the economic impact or wisdom of the entire endeavour, just a childlike but serious minded wonder at doing something because we could if we set our minds to it. And for that it has a beauty and transcendent elegance that rarely accompanies the subject. By the end, there is really only one word to describe the fact that over 50 years ago three men looked down on the Earthrise and beheld every other living thing in existence in one glance. And that word is: wow!
It is slow, for sure, but only because we have become used to pace and forced drama, from our fictions and our documentaries. Apollo 11 won’t be for everyone in that case, and may even be fairly called dull by some who can’t relate to it in any way. For me it was a trance like epiphany I can’t forget. Highly recommended if you are looking for something fascinating, educational and thought provoking out of your comfort zone and out of this world!
Director Todd Douglas Miller makes the bold choice to do away with all narrative, cutaway interviews and commentaries, and just shows you what happened in gorgeous detail, with a kind of retro super 8 camera vibe, and a very evocative sountrack. The degree of unseen footage of the entire project is jaw-dropping, especially if there is something of a science or even science fiction geek within you.
Some of what you see and hear is, of course, so iconic that when you see or hear them you feel a sense of deja vu that feels like a dream in the context of the full story. The rest is so amazing to contemplate as something that humanity actually achieved that it is tempting to see it as an odd retro sci-fi movie with quite bad effects and a dull plot; the control room, suits, the rocket itself, the sense of endless patience, anticipation and waiting – you just wouldn’t believe it would work if it was a fiction.
At several points I found myself reminding myself that it wasn’t a fiction, and then marvelling at the entire world that existed at the end of the 60s, and how so essentially different it was, and how ancient it feels now. I wasn’t quite born when all this happened, but it has been very much in my imagination all my life. I wanted to be an astronaut, as did most other kids in the Star Wars era of the late 70s and early 80s, and I only really gave up when I realised that meant being as smart and dedicated as Neil Armstrong and not as reckless and cool as Han Solo. Now I am older, I can appreciate things about it that I never could, and in understanding Human history, it is a riveting chapter.
What we see in this film is how detail and hard work and maths and safety precautions and thousands of team members made this happen. Every nut and bolt, and every drop of sweat and fuel is counted, recounted and considered. At times it seems mundane and without drama, boring even, and then the sheer scale of acheivement and wonder overtakes you as you catch yourself realising how incredible it was that any of this was done at all.
There is no political overtone or background here, no conspiracy theory, no other voice questioning the economic impact or wisdom of the entire endeavour, just a childlike but serious minded wonder at doing something because we could if we set our minds to it. And for that it has a beauty and transcendent elegance that rarely accompanies the subject. By the end, there is really only one word to describe the fact that over 50 years ago three men looked down on the Earthrise and beheld every other living thing in existence in one glance. And that word is: wow!
It is slow, for sure, but only because we have become used to pace and forced drama, from our fictions and our documentaries. Apollo 11 won’t be for everyone in that case, and may even be fairly called dull by some who can’t relate to it in any way. For me it was a trance like epiphany I can’t forget. Highly recommended if you are looking for something fascinating, educational and thought provoking out of your comfort zone and out of this world!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Dec 26, 2020
Moody and Atmospheric
Ever since his stint on ER, I have been a fan of George Clooney’s - and not just because he is charming and charismatic on film - but because I find that he brings an interesting facet to whatever character he inhabits
.
And with his latest effort THE MIDNIGHT SKY (Directed by Mr. Clooney, as well) he does not disappoint as his performance - and his Direction - are fascinating to watch.
Based upon the novel by Lily Brooks-Dalton, THE MIDNIGHT SKY tells the tale of a lone scientist (Clooney) in a remote, arctic research station, who is one of the few remaining people on an Earth that has become uninhabitable. He rushes to warn some returning astronauts to avoid their home planet.
A thoughtful, moody film. THE MIDNIGHT SKY will not be everyone’s cup of tea - and you have to be in the mood for something somewhat slow and contemplative - but if you are, you will be rewarded with a rich tapestry of visuals and performances that will be, ultimately, fulfilling.
Let’s start with what works - George Clooney. His direction and his performance as Augustine, the scientist, are both sparse and compact. Neither of these facets have an extraneous movement or tone and they work hand-in-hand to deliver the film that Clooney, obviously intends to give us.
Visually, this film is beautiful to look at - inter cutting the vast emptiness of space to the vast, snowy emptiness of the Arctic. The images that Clooney was able to create was well worth watching this film for.
Clooney was also fortunate enough to cast a variety of stellar performers in a film that has very few roles, so the ones that are there better deliver the goods - and they do. From Ethan Peck (Spock in Star Trek:Discovery) who plays the young Clooney in a flashback (I am very glad they chose to do this as opposed to “de-aging” Clooney) to the Astronauts: Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo (who I continue to like more and more every time I see him), Kyle Chandler and Tiffany Boone. All strike the right tone for the moodiness of this film.
Special notice should be made for Damien Bechir’s astronaut, Sanchez. He was terrific in the limited screen time he had and elevated every scene he was in. Bechir has become one of those performers who I get excited about when I see that he is going to be involved in a screen project.
What doesn’t work? Well…as I stated before…the pacing. It is slow (almost coming to a stop) at times. Since this is a film that will be streamed via Netflix, I can see many, many folks grabbing their phones at times, which is too bad, for the moodiness - and pace - worked for me (or at least the for the mood I was in while watching this).
My other issue with this film is the contrived circumstances that both Clooney and the Astronauts find themselves in. It isn’t enough that Clooney has to journey across rugged Arctic terrain to find a more powerful antennae to communicate with the Astronauts, we have to throw in cracking and melting ice to it. And, of course, just as the Astronauts connect with Clooney, a surprise meteor shower damages the communication array. These contrivances just wasn’t need for the type of movie this film was trying to be. It’s almost as if the Studio Heads said “it’s too slow and talky - put some action in this thing”.
But, if you are able to stay with this film, the ending pays off very well, indeed. I found that it earned it’s ending and I walked away moved and satisfied.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
.
And with his latest effort THE MIDNIGHT SKY (Directed by Mr. Clooney, as well) he does not disappoint as his performance - and his Direction - are fascinating to watch.
Based upon the novel by Lily Brooks-Dalton, THE MIDNIGHT SKY tells the tale of a lone scientist (Clooney) in a remote, arctic research station, who is one of the few remaining people on an Earth that has become uninhabitable. He rushes to warn some returning astronauts to avoid their home planet.
A thoughtful, moody film. THE MIDNIGHT SKY will not be everyone’s cup of tea - and you have to be in the mood for something somewhat slow and contemplative - but if you are, you will be rewarded with a rich tapestry of visuals and performances that will be, ultimately, fulfilling.
Let’s start with what works - George Clooney. His direction and his performance as Augustine, the scientist, are both sparse and compact. Neither of these facets have an extraneous movement or tone and they work hand-in-hand to deliver the film that Clooney, obviously intends to give us.
Visually, this film is beautiful to look at - inter cutting the vast emptiness of space to the vast, snowy emptiness of the Arctic. The images that Clooney was able to create was well worth watching this film for.
Clooney was also fortunate enough to cast a variety of stellar performers in a film that has very few roles, so the ones that are there better deliver the goods - and they do. From Ethan Peck (Spock in Star Trek:Discovery) who plays the young Clooney in a flashback (I am very glad they chose to do this as opposed to “de-aging” Clooney) to the Astronauts: Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo (who I continue to like more and more every time I see him), Kyle Chandler and Tiffany Boone. All strike the right tone for the moodiness of this film.
Special notice should be made for Damien Bechir’s astronaut, Sanchez. He was terrific in the limited screen time he had and elevated every scene he was in. Bechir has become one of those performers who I get excited about when I see that he is going to be involved in a screen project.
What doesn’t work? Well…as I stated before…the pacing. It is slow (almost coming to a stop) at times. Since this is a film that will be streamed via Netflix, I can see many, many folks grabbing their phones at times, which is too bad, for the moodiness - and pace - worked for me (or at least the for the mood I was in while watching this).
My other issue with this film is the contrived circumstances that both Clooney and the Astronauts find themselves in. It isn’t enough that Clooney has to journey across rugged Arctic terrain to find a more powerful antennae to communicate with the Astronauts, we have to throw in cracking and melting ice to it. And, of course, just as the Astronauts connect with Clooney, a surprise meteor shower damages the communication array. These contrivances just wasn’t need for the type of movie this film was trying to be. It’s almost as if the Studio Heads said “it’s too slow and talky - put some action in this thing”.
But, if you are able to stay with this film, the ending pays off very well, indeed. I found that it earned it’s ending and I walked away moved and satisfied.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Peterloo (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Peterloo was a daunting prospect even before getting into the screen. 154 minutes... that's 2 hours and 34 minutes of a very bleak piece of history.
If you've read some of my comments before about real-life event films you'll know that I struggle with the fact that it feels like I'm judging the subject rather than the film itself. Peterloo is no exception.
There is a truly impressive cast bringing this story to life. Lots of faces you'll recognise from one thing or another. I did have to stop myself from exclaiming out loud "Jack Boswell!" when he popped up and that certainly wasn't the only pointing at the screen moment. Performances all round were very good, whether they be someone to sympathise with, or someone to loathe.
You use the word massacre in the description of a film and you know it isn't going to be an easy watch. Unfortunately it was a difficult watch for a completely different reason. This film didn't seem accessible at all. You have to applaud them for wanting to bring a whole story to the screen without cutting lots of pieces out. The timeline seems to generally flow well and it did feel like we were getting the whole journey from start to finish.
Here's where I have a major problem.
The sheer length of this film. While I don't doubt that all the bits were important it honestly felt very repetitive. That coupled with the language made it a very dry watch. I nearly gave up and left. The couple behind me did. Which was actually a godsend because once they did I didn't feel so bad about having to move about to stop myself dozing off. This could easily have been 45 minutes shorter than it was, sacrificing something from the film would have given it a quicker pace to draw you.
What upset me most about this is that the powerful ending that was done so well felt entirely swamped by the long and drawn out beginning. When the scene unfolds you know what's coming but there's no way to prepare yourself for what they've created on the screen. In that moment I was thankful that I'd managed to stick it out just to get to that point. It was done in such a way that you completely understood what was happening and it came with an emotion that brought this tragedy shockingly to life.
Sadly that moment was stolen by this film's villain, time. This scene just kept going. There was a moment where it felt like it had come to a close... and yet it went on. I wasn't entirely surprised with that after seeing the beginning of the film, but I was disappointed. To add insult to injury we were given a brief dialogue at the end that felt very much like an after thought. And with that, I was done.
This is yet another film I've seen recently that felt like it would have been more suited to a multi episode TV series. It had very clear parts and I can't help but think that it would have benefited from being broken up into more manageable sections.
What you should do
Unless you're a massive history enthusiast I can't recommend this one to you. I really feel like your time would be better spent researching the story on the internet or finding a book in the library about it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It's difficult to want for anything in this period of history, but there's no denying that I would love to give that printer a go.
If you've read some of my comments before about real-life event films you'll know that I struggle with the fact that it feels like I'm judging the subject rather than the film itself. Peterloo is no exception.
There is a truly impressive cast bringing this story to life. Lots of faces you'll recognise from one thing or another. I did have to stop myself from exclaiming out loud "Jack Boswell!" when he popped up and that certainly wasn't the only pointing at the screen moment. Performances all round were very good, whether they be someone to sympathise with, or someone to loathe.
You use the word massacre in the description of a film and you know it isn't going to be an easy watch. Unfortunately it was a difficult watch for a completely different reason. This film didn't seem accessible at all. You have to applaud them for wanting to bring a whole story to the screen without cutting lots of pieces out. The timeline seems to generally flow well and it did feel like we were getting the whole journey from start to finish.
Here's where I have a major problem.
The sheer length of this film. While I don't doubt that all the bits were important it honestly felt very repetitive. That coupled with the language made it a very dry watch. I nearly gave up and left. The couple behind me did. Which was actually a godsend because once they did I didn't feel so bad about having to move about to stop myself dozing off. This could easily have been 45 minutes shorter than it was, sacrificing something from the film would have given it a quicker pace to draw you.
What upset me most about this is that the powerful ending that was done so well felt entirely swamped by the long and drawn out beginning. When the scene unfolds you know what's coming but there's no way to prepare yourself for what they've created on the screen. In that moment I was thankful that I'd managed to stick it out just to get to that point. It was done in such a way that you completely understood what was happening and it came with an emotion that brought this tragedy shockingly to life.
Sadly that moment was stolen by this film's villain, time. This scene just kept going. There was a moment where it felt like it had come to a close... and yet it went on. I wasn't entirely surprised with that after seeing the beginning of the film, but I was disappointed. To add insult to injury we were given a brief dialogue at the end that felt very much like an after thought. And with that, I was done.
This is yet another film I've seen recently that felt like it would have been more suited to a multi episode TV series. It had very clear parts and I can't help but think that it would have benefited from being broken up into more manageable sections.
What you should do
Unless you're a massive history enthusiast I can't recommend this one to you. I really feel like your time would be better spent researching the story on the internet or finding a book in the library about it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It's difficult to want for anything in this period of history, but there's no denying that I would love to give that printer a go.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The length of time it’s taken me to catch this one at the cinema belies my lukewarm interest in the material: I’m not a ‘fan boy’ for either Marvel or DC properties. As it turns out, writer/director David “Fury” Ayer’s Suicide Squad is just plain frustrating in cinematic terms.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Christine (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
If it bleeds, it leads.
Life is precious. Bad times always get good again eventually. Winter turns to spring and you feel the warmth of the sun on your face again. So what drives someone – anyone – to the point of despair sufficient for them to ignore all of the potential upturns and to take their own life?
Christine tells the tragic tale of Florida TV news reporter Christine Chubbuck who committed suicide live on air in 1974. Yes, this is a spoiler, but since most people have some sense of what a film is about before they go to see it, it’s not really a big one. And I think in this case, knowing the outcome is pretty essential since otherwise you will likely spend 2 hours getting increasingly irritated by the erratic behaviour of the lead character and may possibly turn it off. With this movie, the telling is in the journey – not the destination.
London-born Rebecca Hall (“The Town”) plays the 30 year old virgin Christine; a damaged article with past mental issues, she has been moved by her mother Peg (J Smith-Cameron) from Boston to Florida to make a fresh start. But the station is struggling and Christine’s insistence on pursuing dull but worthy stories, such as zoning disputes, isn’t helping: she is driving her boss (Tracy Letts) to distraction. Despite her spiky demeanour and unapproachable nature, her colleagues including Jean (Maria Dizzia), the show’s anchor (and potential deflowerer) George (Michael C Hall) and weatherman Steve (Timothy Simons from “Veep”) all do their best to support her. It is part of the true tragedy of the piece that her downward spiral continues despite their best efforts.
Hall is outstanding in the role. She portrays the crazily compulsive behaviour of Chubbuck extremely well: perfectionism gone wild as she attempts to edit out 3 seconds off a clip while the film is already in the machine. At times the other-worldliness and creepiness of her character become extremely unsettling; an excruciating scene with a married couple in a bar being a case in point. Overall it’s an extremely thoughtful portrayal that is as quiet and unassuming as Ruth Negga’s in “Loving” (but without the smiles or the charm). I would like to think that after the Oscars team picked the ‘obvious contenders’ of Portman, Stone and Huppert, and with a place ‘reserved’ for Streep, they were left with Negga and Hall and had a “dammit, we can only pick 1 out of 2 here” moment.
Letts as the crotchety station chief also delivers a fine performance, and it’s a shame that the script never gave us the chance to see his post-shooting reactions, since the ‘if only’ ramifications for him in particular must have been huge.
In retrospect, Chubbuck’s actions were bizarre: taking her life in such a public way (and insisting the show be recorded for her “reels”) strikes of narcissism and a bitter revenge. While the film is no doubt based on the true recollections of the real-life participants, the screenplay by Craig Shilowich, in an impressive writing debut, for me never quite closed that loop: why this way rather that a car and a hosepipe?
Directed by Antonio Campos, this is never an easy watch. It’s a bit like watching a car crash in ultra-slow motion, and pretty much mandates that you watch an episode of “Father Ted” afterwards to cheer yourself up! But it’s a fascinating study in mental decline, and it’s a useful reminder that it behoves all of us to pay more attention to others around us and reach out with real help if needed before the worst can happen.
Christine tells the tragic tale of Florida TV news reporter Christine Chubbuck who committed suicide live on air in 1974. Yes, this is a spoiler, but since most people have some sense of what a film is about before they go to see it, it’s not really a big one. And I think in this case, knowing the outcome is pretty essential since otherwise you will likely spend 2 hours getting increasingly irritated by the erratic behaviour of the lead character and may possibly turn it off. With this movie, the telling is in the journey – not the destination.
London-born Rebecca Hall (“The Town”) plays the 30 year old virgin Christine; a damaged article with past mental issues, she has been moved by her mother Peg (J Smith-Cameron) from Boston to Florida to make a fresh start. But the station is struggling and Christine’s insistence on pursuing dull but worthy stories, such as zoning disputes, isn’t helping: she is driving her boss (Tracy Letts) to distraction. Despite her spiky demeanour and unapproachable nature, her colleagues including Jean (Maria Dizzia), the show’s anchor (and potential deflowerer) George (Michael C Hall) and weatherman Steve (Timothy Simons from “Veep”) all do their best to support her. It is part of the true tragedy of the piece that her downward spiral continues despite their best efforts.
Hall is outstanding in the role. She portrays the crazily compulsive behaviour of Chubbuck extremely well: perfectionism gone wild as she attempts to edit out 3 seconds off a clip while the film is already in the machine. At times the other-worldliness and creepiness of her character become extremely unsettling; an excruciating scene with a married couple in a bar being a case in point. Overall it’s an extremely thoughtful portrayal that is as quiet and unassuming as Ruth Negga’s in “Loving” (but without the smiles or the charm). I would like to think that after the Oscars team picked the ‘obvious contenders’ of Portman, Stone and Huppert, and with a place ‘reserved’ for Streep, they were left with Negga and Hall and had a “dammit, we can only pick 1 out of 2 here” moment.
Letts as the crotchety station chief also delivers a fine performance, and it’s a shame that the script never gave us the chance to see his post-shooting reactions, since the ‘if only’ ramifications for him in particular must have been huge.
In retrospect, Chubbuck’s actions were bizarre: taking her life in such a public way (and insisting the show be recorded for her “reels”) strikes of narcissism and a bitter revenge. While the film is no doubt based on the true recollections of the real-life participants, the screenplay by Craig Shilowich, in an impressive writing debut, for me never quite closed that loop: why this way rather that a car and a hosepipe?
Directed by Antonio Campos, this is never an easy watch. It’s a bit like watching a car crash in ultra-slow motion, and pretty much mandates that you watch an episode of “Father Ted” afterwards to cheer yourself up! But it’s a fascinating study in mental decline, and it’s a useful reminder that it behoves all of us to pay more attention to others around us and reach out with real help if needed before the worst can happen.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Cloud Atlas (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
While I am not familiar with the novel, I was not excited to review the film adaptation of David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas. Though the Screenplay was written and directed by the Wachowskis (The Matrix) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) I did not know exactly what I was getting into. The trailer shows it as an epic sci-fi film crossing the time and lives of several stories and how everything and everyone is connected. Needless to say my curiosity was piqued. But I was nervous because I knew it would take a grand effort to keep this epic and ambitious project from falling flat. And well, I can honestly say that I am not quite sure if the combined effort succeeded.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Kris Karcher (10 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jan 5, 2018
Better then it looks.
Contains spoilers, click to show
It’s been years since I’ve seen the original 1995 Jumanji, but from what I can remember as a 5-10 year old (not sure when I got around to owning the VHS) I enjoyed it. Robin Williams was on fire in the 90’s and turned in another comparable performance in this fun action adventure film. This new incarnation of the Jumanji tale changes direction a bit. For one it swaps the outdated board game that contains an entire jungle world inside it, for a more cultural relevant video game console that contains an entire jungle world inside it. I’m actually surprised they didn't use an iPad. 2017’s Jumanji also adds in a body swapping element. The teens that enter the game suddenly become adult video game characters. Complete with skills and weakness of varying degrees of usefulness.
Semantics aside, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is also a serviceable blockbuster flick. It’s a fun film that moves at a decent pace and avoids a lot of the typical dull spots most popcorn flicks fall victim to. The adult cast is a fun mixture of comedic talent and have some great chemistry together. The teenage cast less so but they have a more limited role in the film. I enjoyed watching the adult cast attempt to convey the teenagers “inside” them. Dwayne Johnson does this particularly well, playing a timid nerdy teenager trapped in the body of a jacked, smoldering, elite fighting machine. The film purposefully miscast each role. Kevin Hart play’s the avatar of a 6ft football star, Jack black stands in for a Mean Chick-esc selfie obsessed teenage girl, and the bad ass Karen Gillan plays the avatar of an insecure self-conscious teenage girl. The dichotomy of the characters real-life personalities always being at odds with their avatars new physical and mental attributes provides much of the comedy. Not all of it lands, but enough does and they don’t overdo it.
Once we enter the world of Jumanji the characters attempt to figure out how the “game” works. This leads to some humorous video game style exposition. I found this method of exposition to be unique and interesting. Incorporating NPC’s (Non-playable characters) whose sole purpose is to help players figure out what is going on and how to play the game was a fun and meta way to advance the story. It sort of reminds me of some of the things I enjoyed about 2012’s Wreck-It Ralph.
Then the gang runs into the other player in the game and another star of the film, Nick Jonas. Jonas plays Jefferson "Seaplane" McDonough who is the avatar of Zack a teenage boy sucked into the game in 1997 (Jonas uses 1997 lingo frequently. Radical.) and has lived in the jungle for what he claims to be “a few months”. This leads to the biggest missed opportunity of the film. Time apparently moves differently in Jumanji. A few months in Jumanji translates to 20 years in real life. When Zack is told he has been missing 20 years this should have been a major B plot. They do try and add some weight to the situation by showing how deeply affected Zack is by this news, but I feel they could have explored this dynamic a bit further. Especially when it comes to the ending. Which is a bit anticlimactic. Once they all end up working together to escape Jumanji they all are all transported back to their respective timelines and it would appear as though no time has passed. So it sort of ditches the whole being stuck in the game for 20 years angle and instead chooses to allow Zack to live a full and complete life starting from 1997. Also, the main cast seems to be unaffected timeline wise. All of this film took place while they were down in the basement serving their detentions. It would have made for a much more interesting ending if they return to their bodies and find out that in the real world they were gone for a longer period of time. Even just a week or so would have added an interesting dynamic to the pretty flat and standard ending. They do end up meeting up with grown-up Zack (Played by Colin Hanks) and there is a nice little payoff to the quasi-romance Nick Jonas and Jack Black had throughout the film. (Yes you read that correctly.) Alex named his daughter after Bethany who saved his life in the jungle.
The four teenagers all learn valuable life lessons inside the jungle. Fridge leans to appreciate his friend Spencer. Spencer learns to man up and take risks. Bethany learns to care about something other than herself and her popularity, and Martha learns to come out of her shell a bit and open up. While I often find these types of stories to be heavy-handed and snooze-worthy Jumanji manages to keep the gushy feel good stuff to a minimum. It’s there, and it’s obvious but it’s not in your face enough to bring down the movie.
Ultimately I will go ahead and recommend Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle if your into Action comedy that doesn't ever take itself too seriously. I repeat this is not a serious movie. But it is a mildly funny, family-friendly romp that I fully expect anyone who paid for a ticket to at least get their monies worth. Provided they came in with the right expectations.
Semantics aside, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is also a serviceable blockbuster flick. It’s a fun film that moves at a decent pace and avoids a lot of the typical dull spots most popcorn flicks fall victim to. The adult cast is a fun mixture of comedic talent and have some great chemistry together. The teenage cast less so but they have a more limited role in the film. I enjoyed watching the adult cast attempt to convey the teenagers “inside” them. Dwayne Johnson does this particularly well, playing a timid nerdy teenager trapped in the body of a jacked, smoldering, elite fighting machine. The film purposefully miscast each role. Kevin Hart play’s the avatar of a 6ft football star, Jack black stands in for a Mean Chick-esc selfie obsessed teenage girl, and the bad ass Karen Gillan plays the avatar of an insecure self-conscious teenage girl. The dichotomy of the characters real-life personalities always being at odds with their avatars new physical and mental attributes provides much of the comedy. Not all of it lands, but enough does and they don’t overdo it.
Once we enter the world of Jumanji the characters attempt to figure out how the “game” works. This leads to some humorous video game style exposition. I found this method of exposition to be unique and interesting. Incorporating NPC’s (Non-playable characters) whose sole purpose is to help players figure out what is going on and how to play the game was a fun and meta way to advance the story. It sort of reminds me of some of the things I enjoyed about 2012’s Wreck-It Ralph.
Then the gang runs into the other player in the game and another star of the film, Nick Jonas. Jonas plays Jefferson "Seaplane" McDonough who is the avatar of Zack a teenage boy sucked into the game in 1997 (Jonas uses 1997 lingo frequently. Radical.) and has lived in the jungle for what he claims to be “a few months”. This leads to the biggest missed opportunity of the film. Time apparently moves differently in Jumanji. A few months in Jumanji translates to 20 years in real life. When Zack is told he has been missing 20 years this should have been a major B plot. They do try and add some weight to the situation by showing how deeply affected Zack is by this news, but I feel they could have explored this dynamic a bit further. Especially when it comes to the ending. Which is a bit anticlimactic. Once they all end up working together to escape Jumanji they all are all transported back to their respective timelines and it would appear as though no time has passed. So it sort of ditches the whole being stuck in the game for 20 years angle and instead chooses to allow Zack to live a full and complete life starting from 1997. Also, the main cast seems to be unaffected timeline wise. All of this film took place while they were down in the basement serving their detentions. It would have made for a much more interesting ending if they return to their bodies and find out that in the real world they were gone for a longer period of time. Even just a week or so would have added an interesting dynamic to the pretty flat and standard ending. They do end up meeting up with grown-up Zack (Played by Colin Hanks) and there is a nice little payoff to the quasi-romance Nick Jonas and Jack Black had throughout the film. (Yes you read that correctly.) Alex named his daughter after Bethany who saved his life in the jungle.
The four teenagers all learn valuable life lessons inside the jungle. Fridge leans to appreciate his friend Spencer. Spencer learns to man up and take risks. Bethany learns to care about something other than herself and her popularity, and Martha learns to come out of her shell a bit and open up. While I often find these types of stories to be heavy-handed and snooze-worthy Jumanji manages to keep the gushy feel good stuff to a minimum. It’s there, and it’s obvious but it’s not in your face enough to bring down the movie.
Ultimately I will go ahead and recommend Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle if your into Action comedy that doesn't ever take itself too seriously. I repeat this is not a serious movie. But it is a mildly funny, family-friendly romp that I fully expect anyone who paid for a ticket to at least get their monies worth. Provided they came in with the right expectations.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
There are automatically problems with concluding films in a series, a definite set of things need to be achieved and that doesn't always mean the film can have the same impact as its predecessors. I don't know if this is quite where my struggles with the film came from but it probably didn't help.
I enjoy Star Wars but I wouldn't classify myself as a fan, I like the originals, I've really enjoyed the latest instalments, but I'd happily never watch the prequels again. Rewatching The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi was a joy, I don't remember them being that good, so it was sad to get yet another conclusion this year that didn't leave me with good feelings.
We obviously get the same set of actors doing the usual thing, I wasn't particularly wowed by any of the performances. Adam Driver certainly came across better to me, partly because I finally saw a film of his this year where I felt like he could act, and also because he genuinely had a sound performance through the film.
What appears to be the main theme for our cast is that a lot of them get screwed over. Rose in particular, someone online did the maths, 1 minute and 16 seconds of screen time in a 2 hour and 22-minute film. Her first appearance is so dismissive that it was very clear we weren't going to be seeing her. I'd have felt much better if they hologrammed her from somewhere else in the galaxy being hero own hero and left it at that, or then brought her in at the last minute to Captain Marvel that shit. It felt like a fear of offending the trolls, which is a little redundant considering they were going to go off regardless about something.
Finn and Poe, the ultimate bromance. Every time they appeared onscreen there was the rom-com moment where they'd run into each other's arms and kiss... we were robbed each and every time. With news going around about LGBT representation in RoS we could hope though... but what we got was a token kiss from two extras that didn't feel like it was anything more than ticking the box. R2D2 and C3P0 had a better gay storyline than that kiss did.
Finn didn't exactly get a great life in Rise Of Skywalker, as I sit here thinking about his role the only bit I can recall off the top of my head is that he spent a lot of time trying to tell Rey something yet never managed it. Every time it happened I had an uncomfortable feeling and really didn't want it to be what I thought it was. There are other things that Finn did that I can remember, but for the main thing to be this completely irrelevant piece of story to be number one is a complete joke.
Trying to decipher what happened with the Leia footage has my mind-boggling. They used unused footage from the previous movies and shoe-horned it into the story depending on what they had and could make out of it. With all the technology we have I'm honestly surprised how bad it looked. There's always something slightly off about footage that's doctored like this, Leia didn't look like she was in the same colour palette as the rest of the film in several scenes, and you get back of the headshots to fill the interactions with Rey. I dislike that in most films because actual actor or not it always looks like it's something they've had to re-shoot without the original actor. There's also one scene where we see a young Leia and Luke training, Luke looks quite convincing but Leia's recreation is terrible. Being that there's no dialogue in this bit I'm not sure why they couldn't dig into the archives for something more suitable.
When it comes to effects in the rest of the film it's obviously the usual quality you'd expect, I did suffer a couple of times where scenes were very busy with movement and it set off my motion sickness, those bits might have been dubious but I'd honestly not be able to tell you!
Rise Of Skywalker might have been more aptly named Rise Of The Machines (to steal from another franchise). BB-8 is always adorable, and D-0 was a fun little addition. C3P0 really had some great airtime though, some moments made me laugh, some made me cry, along with Kylo he probably faired the best overall.
As the beginning of the film started so slowly I was concerned about what was in store. Trundling along with nothing seemingly happening I was bored and desperate for something to perk up the pace. Those moments did happen, but with no real flow. It was very much start and stop for a lot of the time, no build-up to the action, no real anticipation so the satisfaction of the scenes were very short-lived.
This year has been the culmination to a lot of movie history and yet again I'm not a fan of it. I don't think that Rise Of Skywalker lived up to The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi, even having watched them all in the same week I wasn't engaged by the final instalment because of the slow beginning.
I can forgive films a lot of things if I enjoy them but the list here was far too extensive to be able to do that. With pacing problems, the box-ticking, and so many characters being let down I've finally come down off the fence and sadly I'm on the disappointed side of it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/star-wars-rise-of-skywalker-movie-review.html
I enjoy Star Wars but I wouldn't classify myself as a fan, I like the originals, I've really enjoyed the latest instalments, but I'd happily never watch the prequels again. Rewatching The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi was a joy, I don't remember them being that good, so it was sad to get yet another conclusion this year that didn't leave me with good feelings.
We obviously get the same set of actors doing the usual thing, I wasn't particularly wowed by any of the performances. Adam Driver certainly came across better to me, partly because I finally saw a film of his this year where I felt like he could act, and also because he genuinely had a sound performance through the film.
What appears to be the main theme for our cast is that a lot of them get screwed over. Rose in particular, someone online did the maths, 1 minute and 16 seconds of screen time in a 2 hour and 22-minute film. Her first appearance is so dismissive that it was very clear we weren't going to be seeing her. I'd have felt much better if they hologrammed her from somewhere else in the galaxy being hero own hero and left it at that, or then brought her in at the last minute to Captain Marvel that shit. It felt like a fear of offending the trolls, which is a little redundant considering they were going to go off regardless about something.
Finn and Poe, the ultimate bromance. Every time they appeared onscreen there was the rom-com moment where they'd run into each other's arms and kiss... we were robbed each and every time. With news going around about LGBT representation in RoS we could hope though... but what we got was a token kiss from two extras that didn't feel like it was anything more than ticking the box. R2D2 and C3P0 had a better gay storyline than that kiss did.
Finn didn't exactly get a great life in Rise Of Skywalker, as I sit here thinking about his role the only bit I can recall off the top of my head is that he spent a lot of time trying to tell Rey something yet never managed it. Every time it happened I had an uncomfortable feeling and really didn't want it to be what I thought it was. There are other things that Finn did that I can remember, but for the main thing to be this completely irrelevant piece of story to be number one is a complete joke.
Trying to decipher what happened with the Leia footage has my mind-boggling. They used unused footage from the previous movies and shoe-horned it into the story depending on what they had and could make out of it. With all the technology we have I'm honestly surprised how bad it looked. There's always something slightly off about footage that's doctored like this, Leia didn't look like she was in the same colour palette as the rest of the film in several scenes, and you get back of the headshots to fill the interactions with Rey. I dislike that in most films because actual actor or not it always looks like it's something they've had to re-shoot without the original actor. There's also one scene where we see a young Leia and Luke training, Luke looks quite convincing but Leia's recreation is terrible. Being that there's no dialogue in this bit I'm not sure why they couldn't dig into the archives for something more suitable.
When it comes to effects in the rest of the film it's obviously the usual quality you'd expect, I did suffer a couple of times where scenes were very busy with movement and it set off my motion sickness, those bits might have been dubious but I'd honestly not be able to tell you!
Rise Of Skywalker might have been more aptly named Rise Of The Machines (to steal from another franchise). BB-8 is always adorable, and D-0 was a fun little addition. C3P0 really had some great airtime though, some moments made me laugh, some made me cry, along with Kylo he probably faired the best overall.
As the beginning of the film started so slowly I was concerned about what was in store. Trundling along with nothing seemingly happening I was bored and desperate for something to perk up the pace. Those moments did happen, but with no real flow. It was very much start and stop for a lot of the time, no build-up to the action, no real anticipation so the satisfaction of the scenes were very short-lived.
This year has been the culmination to a lot of movie history and yet again I'm not a fan of it. I don't think that Rise Of Skywalker lived up to The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi, even having watched them all in the same week I wasn't engaged by the final instalment because of the slow beginning.
I can forgive films a lot of things if I enjoy them but the list here was far too extensive to be able to do that. With pacing problems, the box-ticking, and so many characters being let down I've finally come down off the fence and sadly I'm on the disappointed side of it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/star-wars-rise-of-skywalker-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Annabelle Comes Home (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
God help me I don't know why I went to see this.
The Warrens have contained Annabelle, her influence is safely blocked by a box crafted from sacred glass and they've locked her up in their artefact room. A year goes by without incident, but when their babysitter's friend visits unannounced, curious and looking for answers, the relative peace of the house is shattered.
Daniela unwittingly unleashes Annabelle's power onto the house and the three of them inside. The spirits in the Warren's basement are gradually escaping and coming out to play.
While me and horror don't mix, I do occasionally like the idea behind some of them. A story about objects with power like Annabelle Comes Home really appealed to me as I'm a fan of this sort of supernatural malarkey. As such, I decided to suck it up and be brave. I'm mainly glad I gave it a go... mainly.
This is the first horror film I have ever seen that has had any effect on me after seeing it. Most I just forget about and move on to the next, Annabelle Comes Home really messed with me though. I got up in the night and when I got back to bed I thought about it for the briefest moment and spent the next hour with the light on scrolling through Pinterest. Even when watching it at the cinema there were genuine moments where I was scared, not just the jumping out of my seat kind. Actually, I was impressed that it didn't just rely on the jump scare as a way of getting to its audience. More movies are doing that these days and it just feels like a very cheap way of trying for horror.
The scares here were much more... subtle... but subtle is absolutely not the right words. What I mean is that they were crafted in a much better and natural way than something popping out and screaming in your face. There is a moment with the bride where the shot genuinely moves so swiftly that it's almost inducing panic in you because you can't quite work out what's happening.
All of the spirits in the house are incredibly well done visually. The Ferryman in particular is very effective, it's amazing how something as simple as the sound of coins can add to the tension. When I said "all" at the beginning of this paragraph I did overstate slightly, there's one exception. Sadly Bob (our bit part love interest) is stuck outside trying to fend off a werewolf. I feel like the chances are high that he was designed for a Scooby Doo movie that was never produced. It's got a slightly cartoonish quality to it and when you add in the excess of rolling fog it becomes the least believable of all the unbelievable things.
Speaking of Bob, as a character, while adorable, does feel out of place as well. But the addition of this lighter storyline probably saved me from having a complete breakdown right in the cinema.
Daniela, the girl who can't read warning labels, left me annoyed. She's curious and looking for answers but it also feels like she's not convinced that the Warrens are for real. Either way, why would you play with the thing that is not only inside a locked room, but inside a locked box inside the locked room and has a very clear sign saying not to open it? Surely the only thing that's inside the box apart from a creepy doll and a chair is eternal damnation.
I thought that Madison Iseman as the babysitter Mary Ellen was a really good call in this. She's incredibly believable throughout and managed not to overact. Let's face it, there's always a strong chance of that in horror.
Finding out that Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson were barely in it was extremely disappointing. They're both good actors with a host of top roles under their belts and I'd been looking forward to seeing them on screen together. Once the set up is done though it's over to the younger cast members as Ed and Lorraine Warren go off on a trip. They do appear later in the film, but only after the action's conclusion to participate in the bizarrely conceived ending.
Mckenna Grace managed to deal with some of the creepy moments really well but I didn't feel like there was really much for her to do. Everything was very much guided by Mary Ellen and Daniela, and when she did get a moment on the screen it was swiftly snatched away by something else. Potentially by design I guess, but there wasn't much chance to make the role come alive.
I've not seen any of the other films in this franchise, and honestly, probably won't now. If someone who has could tell me if the others are as formulaic as this one I would appreciate it. I'm not saying formulaic is bad, sometimes knowing what's coming is easier to deal with, I'm sure it really helped me with this film. Near the beginning we have a sequence that gives you a checklist of things to wait for. Would I have stuck it out if I hadn't known what to look out for? Would some of those things scared me enough to leave? We'll never know.
I'm glad I managed to stick with it, the idea had been what really intrigued me and I feel like that came through well. Despite other issues with predictability and characters I actually enjoyed this film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/annabelle-comes-home-movie-review.html
The Warrens have contained Annabelle, her influence is safely blocked by a box crafted from sacred glass and they've locked her up in their artefact room. A year goes by without incident, but when their babysitter's friend visits unannounced, curious and looking for answers, the relative peace of the house is shattered.
Daniela unwittingly unleashes Annabelle's power onto the house and the three of them inside. The spirits in the Warren's basement are gradually escaping and coming out to play.
While me and horror don't mix, I do occasionally like the idea behind some of them. A story about objects with power like Annabelle Comes Home really appealed to me as I'm a fan of this sort of supernatural malarkey. As such, I decided to suck it up and be brave. I'm mainly glad I gave it a go... mainly.
This is the first horror film I have ever seen that has had any effect on me after seeing it. Most I just forget about and move on to the next, Annabelle Comes Home really messed with me though. I got up in the night and when I got back to bed I thought about it for the briefest moment and spent the next hour with the light on scrolling through Pinterest. Even when watching it at the cinema there were genuine moments where I was scared, not just the jumping out of my seat kind. Actually, I was impressed that it didn't just rely on the jump scare as a way of getting to its audience. More movies are doing that these days and it just feels like a very cheap way of trying for horror.
The scares here were much more... subtle... but subtle is absolutely not the right words. What I mean is that they were crafted in a much better and natural way than something popping out and screaming in your face. There is a moment with the bride where the shot genuinely moves so swiftly that it's almost inducing panic in you because you can't quite work out what's happening.
All of the spirits in the house are incredibly well done visually. The Ferryman in particular is very effective, it's amazing how something as simple as the sound of coins can add to the tension. When I said "all" at the beginning of this paragraph I did overstate slightly, there's one exception. Sadly Bob (our bit part love interest) is stuck outside trying to fend off a werewolf. I feel like the chances are high that he was designed for a Scooby Doo movie that was never produced. It's got a slightly cartoonish quality to it and when you add in the excess of rolling fog it becomes the least believable of all the unbelievable things.
Speaking of Bob, as a character, while adorable, does feel out of place as well. But the addition of this lighter storyline probably saved me from having a complete breakdown right in the cinema.
Daniela, the girl who can't read warning labels, left me annoyed. She's curious and looking for answers but it also feels like she's not convinced that the Warrens are for real. Either way, why would you play with the thing that is not only inside a locked room, but inside a locked box inside the locked room and has a very clear sign saying not to open it? Surely the only thing that's inside the box apart from a creepy doll and a chair is eternal damnation.
I thought that Madison Iseman as the babysitter Mary Ellen was a really good call in this. She's incredibly believable throughout and managed not to overact. Let's face it, there's always a strong chance of that in horror.
Finding out that Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson were barely in it was extremely disappointing. They're both good actors with a host of top roles under their belts and I'd been looking forward to seeing them on screen together. Once the set up is done though it's over to the younger cast members as Ed and Lorraine Warren go off on a trip. They do appear later in the film, but only after the action's conclusion to participate in the bizarrely conceived ending.
Mckenna Grace managed to deal with some of the creepy moments really well but I didn't feel like there was really much for her to do. Everything was very much guided by Mary Ellen and Daniela, and when she did get a moment on the screen it was swiftly snatched away by something else. Potentially by design I guess, but there wasn't much chance to make the role come alive.
I've not seen any of the other films in this franchise, and honestly, probably won't now. If someone who has could tell me if the others are as formulaic as this one I would appreciate it. I'm not saying formulaic is bad, sometimes knowing what's coming is easier to deal with, I'm sure it really helped me with this film. Near the beginning we have a sequence that gives you a checklist of things to wait for. Would I have stuck it out if I hadn't known what to look out for? Would some of those things scared me enough to leave? We'll never know.
I'm glad I managed to stick with it, the idea had been what really intrigued me and I feel like that came through well. Despite other issues with predictability and characters I actually enjoyed this film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/annabelle-comes-home-movie-review.html