Search
Tyler Fletcher (8 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 14, 2020
Character development (1 more)
Forgettable story
Another Live-Action Disney Adaption Bomb
Contains spoilers, click to show
What is it about fantasy novels that makes them so difficult to translate effectively to the silver screen? It’s not impossible – J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series and Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings adaptations are proof that it can be done. More often than not, however, the result is as limp and truncated as Kenneth Branagh’s Artemis Fowl – a few standout moments set adrift in a sea of underdeveloped characters, incomplete backstory elements, and abbreviated world building. Although the problem lies primarily in the difficulties associated with condensing an epic tale into a short-ish movie, the lack of elegance with which that is accomplished makes Artemis Fowl a failure for anyone hoping for the next great fantasy film.
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Girl Last Seen in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Lainey was ten when she was taken. She spent three horrible years in her kidnapper's basement, enduring horrible things. Lainey is supposed to be "lucky," since she escaped, but it's hard for her to see it that way sometimes. Her entire life has been formed by that awful period in her life. And now, another girl has gone missing. Olivia Shaw, who looks exactly like Lainey did thirteen years ago. Lainey's kidnapper was never found: the police say because she could never give strong enough evidence to identify him. So Lainey has spent these years afraid, living in a haze of pills and booze, and waiting for something bad to happen. Well, something bad has happened. How exactly is Lainey involved, and is she ever going to be safe again?
I definitely have some mixed feelings about this one. <i>It certainly grabs you from the beginning and has some moments that make you go "what?!"</i> Parts of the story are very unique--I enjoyed the plot of two young women/girls aligned by a potential kidnapper--but the story was marred somewhat by the focus on Lainey's drinking and drugs. She's presented as an unreliable narrator, which I understand, and as a flawed heroine. Some of the scenes with her nearly make you cringe: you feel a mix of such sympathy and frustration, because she's such a stressful protagonist. The trend toward these frustrating, unreliable narrators lately has grown a bit old for me.
My other issue was Lainey's strange dynamic with the detective investigating Olivia's disappearance, Sean: the same detective, coincidentally, who found Lainey thirteen years ago as she stumbled helplessly along the road after escaping her horrible fate in the basement. Their dynamic, frankly, is just odd, and I found it almost distracting from the main story. Romance? Just a side story? Is he involved? It was less a bit of intrigue though and, as I mentioned, a distraction. And honestly, a little confusing. After a while, I started to get a little bored with Lainey's helplessness, her interactions with Sean, and the overall lack of things moving forward.
That changed about 3/4 in, when things picked up and became interesting again. There are definitely some fascinating moments in the book, and I did find it engaging overall, despite some stumbles along the way. This is a first novel and I see room from improvement, for sure. I'm going for a 3-star rating -- this is based on a combination of 2.5 stars for some stilted/cheesy writing combined with 3.5 stars for some exciting plot twists, including one near the end that pretty much made it all worth it. I would certainly be intrigued to read Laurin's next book. Don't let my review scare you from this one: I read a lot of thrillers, so I get bit jaded reading some similar plot devices. There's still plenty of pieces to like here.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!); it is available everywhere as of 07/20/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
I definitely have some mixed feelings about this one. <i>It certainly grabs you from the beginning and has some moments that make you go "what?!"</i> Parts of the story are very unique--I enjoyed the plot of two young women/girls aligned by a potential kidnapper--but the story was marred somewhat by the focus on Lainey's drinking and drugs. She's presented as an unreliable narrator, which I understand, and as a flawed heroine. Some of the scenes with her nearly make you cringe: you feel a mix of such sympathy and frustration, because she's such a stressful protagonist. The trend toward these frustrating, unreliable narrators lately has grown a bit old for me.
My other issue was Lainey's strange dynamic with the detective investigating Olivia's disappearance, Sean: the same detective, coincidentally, who found Lainey thirteen years ago as she stumbled helplessly along the road after escaping her horrible fate in the basement. Their dynamic, frankly, is just odd, and I found it almost distracting from the main story. Romance? Just a side story? Is he involved? It was less a bit of intrigue though and, as I mentioned, a distraction. And honestly, a little confusing. After a while, I started to get a little bored with Lainey's helplessness, her interactions with Sean, and the overall lack of things moving forward.
That changed about 3/4 in, when things picked up and became interesting again. There are definitely some fascinating moments in the book, and I did find it engaging overall, despite some stumbles along the way. This is a first novel and I see room from improvement, for sure. I'm going for a 3-star rating -- this is based on a combination of 2.5 stars for some stilted/cheesy writing combined with 3.5 stars for some exciting plot twists, including one near the end that pretty much made it all worth it. I would certainly be intrigued to read Laurin's next book. Don't let my review scare you from this one: I read a lot of thrillers, so I get bit jaded reading some similar plot devices. There's still plenty of pieces to like here.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!); it is available everywhere as of 07/20/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Hazel (2934 KP) rated The Vanishing of Margaret Small [Audiobook] in Books
Dec 18, 2022
![The Vanishing of Margaret Small [Audiobook]](/uploads/profile_image/292/07af28d6-184f-436e-a53d-a1ddb1c79292.jpg?m=1671380186)
Oh my word! This is a debut novel for Mr Alexander and what a debut it is.
I absolutely love Margaret ... what a likeable and strong character she is despite what she experienced in her young life. She has every reason to dislike her fellow human beings but she is much better person than most ... she is kind, thoughtful and understanding.
The book is told in two timelines, the past and the present.
The present: Margaret is 75 and living independently with the support of her excellent support worker Wayne. Margaret loves Cilla Black and she likes nothing more than listening to Cilla's autobiography but when she starts receiving notes and gifts from someone who signs them with "C", Margaret thinks Cilla is back from the dead but it can't be so who is it? The notes revive memories from Margaret's past.
The past: Margaret's story starts at 7 years old when she is "vanished" into a long-stay institution called St Mary's where she lives for the majority of her life. I won't say she is 'cared for' as what she endured is not care in any way, shape or form but Margaret endures it with innocent acceptance of knowing it's not right but being powerless to do anything about it. There are scenes which broke my heart but others that also warmed it.
Both timelines are equally captivating and enthralling but the past had me in bits at times at the cruelties of how children and adults who are "different" were treated but through it all, was the voice of Margaret who I can only describe as being a beautiful person.
I listened to the audiobook and I can highly recommend it; the narrators are just brilliant particularly the voice of Margaret ... oh my, she was brought to life for me; it was like she was sitting right next to me telling me her story myself ... just brilliant.
Margaret is a fictional character however, her story is based on the experiences of 'real' people the author has met during his working life which makes this book even more powerful and I must thank Bonnier UK Audio, Embla Books and NetGalley for enabling me to listen to and share my thoughts of The Vanishing of Margaret Small.
I absolutely love Margaret ... what a likeable and strong character she is despite what she experienced in her young life. She has every reason to dislike her fellow human beings but she is much better person than most ... she is kind, thoughtful and understanding.
The book is told in two timelines, the past and the present.
The present: Margaret is 75 and living independently with the support of her excellent support worker Wayne. Margaret loves Cilla Black and she likes nothing more than listening to Cilla's autobiography but when she starts receiving notes and gifts from someone who signs them with "C", Margaret thinks Cilla is back from the dead but it can't be so who is it? The notes revive memories from Margaret's past.
The past: Margaret's story starts at 7 years old when she is "vanished" into a long-stay institution called St Mary's where she lives for the majority of her life. I won't say she is 'cared for' as what she endured is not care in any way, shape or form but Margaret endures it with innocent acceptance of knowing it's not right but being powerless to do anything about it. There are scenes which broke my heart but others that also warmed it.
Both timelines are equally captivating and enthralling but the past had me in bits at times at the cruelties of how children and adults who are "different" were treated but through it all, was the voice of Margaret who I can only describe as being a beautiful person.
I listened to the audiobook and I can highly recommend it; the narrators are just brilliant particularly the voice of Margaret ... oh my, she was brought to life for me; it was like she was sitting right next to me telling me her story myself ... just brilliant.
Margaret is a fictional character however, her story is based on the experiences of 'real' people the author has met during his working life which makes this book even more powerful and I must thank Bonnier UK Audio, Embla Books and NetGalley for enabling me to listen to and share my thoughts of The Vanishing of Margaret Small.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Return to form
Based, believe it or not, loosely, on the Tim Powers novel, On Stranger Tides, Pirates 4 seemed about as appealing as hole in the head after the diabolical sequels to the excellent first outing. Then it was to be in 3D, scrap several key characters and shed the direction of Gore Verbinski, in favour of Chicago's, Rob Marshall. A recipe for disaster? It seemed that way.
Though saying that, Gore had certainly sealed his fate with me, turning what was a well conceived, action adventure romp with some very memorable characters into an unnecessary epic saga which seriously missed the point and derailed itself. One dubious decision taken in the production of Dead Man's Chest, was to keep Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly's characters, let alone giving them so much prominence.
Knightly was fine, for the first film,. in fact, she was spot on, but she couldn't carry the role any further and began to look ridiculous as the series progressed. This should have been the adventures of Jack Sparrow, so excellently portrayed by Johnny Depp, and Geoffrey Rush's, Barbossa was the perfect pirate. So I was more than pleased to see the continuing adventures of these two characters, with Depp, returning to form after I felt that he had lost it in the sequels.
Penélope Cruz was another pleasant surprise, as never being a fan of her's, I was dubious but this was casting done properly. She was more than convincing as a pirate and put Knightly's efforts to shame. But what of Ian McShane's Blackbeard? Well, another great showing from him, but the inexplicable magic displayed as he waves in his 3D sword around and points it at the camera to remind us that 3D is here, not so much.
But the 3D was pretty naff. You could watch most of the film without the glasses, with the effect being limited to several sequences. It looked good, it was inoffensive and unobtrusive but what was the point again? I don't think that this film will do 3D any real harm but that's because nobody really noticed it in the first place.
The sense of adventure from the The Curse Of The Black Pearl was evident here and long over due. I find it puzzling as to why so many reviews have been so harsh, branding it boring, overly complicated and not pulled together properly, but I would disagree. Granted, it is a bit scrappy, it's not going to be used as case study in tight scripting, or deep character development and it is somewhat derivative, but it was fun, flashy and flamboyant.
Isn't this what these films are all about? Depp created a classic character with Sparrow back in 2003, and tough I felt that he was a one trick pony, Sparrow that is, not Depp, this was a partial return to form, under new direction from Marshall. But I am left feeling that no matter how much I enjoyed this for what it was, the first Pirates Of The Caribbean was a film which successfully transferred a theme park ride into a career defining blockbuster, but I feel that it should have remained one film, a single triumph and not a franchise that has been saved in my eyes, by the fourth installment.
Though saying that, Gore had certainly sealed his fate with me, turning what was a well conceived, action adventure romp with some very memorable characters into an unnecessary epic saga which seriously missed the point and derailed itself. One dubious decision taken in the production of Dead Man's Chest, was to keep Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly's characters, let alone giving them so much prominence.
Knightly was fine, for the first film,. in fact, she was spot on, but she couldn't carry the role any further and began to look ridiculous as the series progressed. This should have been the adventures of Jack Sparrow, so excellently portrayed by Johnny Depp, and Geoffrey Rush's, Barbossa was the perfect pirate. So I was more than pleased to see the continuing adventures of these two characters, with Depp, returning to form after I felt that he had lost it in the sequels.
Penélope Cruz was another pleasant surprise, as never being a fan of her's, I was dubious but this was casting done properly. She was more than convincing as a pirate and put Knightly's efforts to shame. But what of Ian McShane's Blackbeard? Well, another great showing from him, but the inexplicable magic displayed as he waves in his 3D sword around and points it at the camera to remind us that 3D is here, not so much.
But the 3D was pretty naff. You could watch most of the film without the glasses, with the effect being limited to several sequences. It looked good, it was inoffensive and unobtrusive but what was the point again? I don't think that this film will do 3D any real harm but that's because nobody really noticed it in the first place.
The sense of adventure from the The Curse Of The Black Pearl was evident here and long over due. I find it puzzling as to why so many reviews have been so harsh, branding it boring, overly complicated and not pulled together properly, but I would disagree. Granted, it is a bit scrappy, it's not going to be used as case study in tight scripting, or deep character development and it is somewhat derivative, but it was fun, flashy and flamboyant.
Isn't this what these films are all about? Depp created a classic character with Sparrow back in 2003, and tough I felt that he was a one trick pony, Sparrow that is, not Depp, this was a partial return to form, under new direction from Marshall. But I am left feeling that no matter how much I enjoyed this for what it was, the first Pirates Of The Caribbean was a film which successfully transferred a theme park ride into a career defining blockbuster, but I feel that it should have remained one film, a single triumph and not a franchise that has been saved in my eyes, by the fourth installment.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Nerve (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I walked into Nerve expecting it to be a teenage version of the morose 2014 horror/thriller 13 Sins. While similar in premise, 13 Sins is dark and sinister, while Nerve is something different all together. Based on the 2012 young adult novel by the same name, Nerve is a story about an unassuming high school senior who decides to challenge her own comfort zone by playing an online reality game of where “watchers” (Like Facebook Followers) offer up various “Dare’s” for players to complete which nets them money. The more “watchers” players gain, the bigger the possible rewards, but at what cost?
Nerve feels like its two movies in one. For the first two acts, Nerve is a young adult/teen film where we follow Vee (Emma Roberts) as she breaks free from her unassertive personality that has her in the background among her friends and afraid to tell her family where she wants to go to college. She is a good kid, but too timid to go after anything she really wants. Instead through the challenges of the game Nerve, she gains confidence in herself as she becomes involved with another Nerve player Ian (Dave Franco). Together, along with a fast paced uplifting soundtrack, we are taken on a fun and entertaining ride where you cannot help but care about these two and wonder what you would do in their situation.
Roberts and Franco are likable in their roles and they lead a stellar young cast who are all realistic in their youthful portrayal. Not too surprising because they are actually young actors, but it is important to note that the cast feels “real,” which helps sell the believability that a game like “Nerve” could actually exist in our world. Especially in a world where we are glued to our phones, tablets and computers in order to be the “star of our own lives” through the instant gratification of social media. Along with the recent emergence of the popularity of augmented reality games like Pokémon Go, it is conceivable that a game like Nerve could exist in our near future.
But this is where the film starts to fall apart. In the third act, the film hastily transitions into a social commentary of the anonymity of the internet, mob think and what we are willing to share online. While I understand this is a message that seem appropriate a story like this, that message would have been better served in a sinister film like the aforementioned, 13 Sins, and not in a movie which up to that point, felt that it was headed towards being an inspiring and uplifting film. It doesn’t help that the resolution of that social commentary was comical in its execution that completely pulls you out of the film. It was an unnecessary turn that wanted us to focus on the game Nerve rather than the characters the story made us care about. It’s a shame really because up until that point, the film Nerve was fun, enjoyable and inspiring, only to fall apart for no real reason other than to make a weak attempt at being something more than a teen movie.
I am sure the young adult/teenage audience this film is marketed towards will enjoy Nerve, but this film is really more of a rental or at most, a matinee.
Nerve feels like its two movies in one. For the first two acts, Nerve is a young adult/teen film where we follow Vee (Emma Roberts) as she breaks free from her unassertive personality that has her in the background among her friends and afraid to tell her family where she wants to go to college. She is a good kid, but too timid to go after anything she really wants. Instead through the challenges of the game Nerve, she gains confidence in herself as she becomes involved with another Nerve player Ian (Dave Franco). Together, along with a fast paced uplifting soundtrack, we are taken on a fun and entertaining ride where you cannot help but care about these two and wonder what you would do in their situation.
Roberts and Franco are likable in their roles and they lead a stellar young cast who are all realistic in their youthful portrayal. Not too surprising because they are actually young actors, but it is important to note that the cast feels “real,” which helps sell the believability that a game like “Nerve” could actually exist in our world. Especially in a world where we are glued to our phones, tablets and computers in order to be the “star of our own lives” through the instant gratification of social media. Along with the recent emergence of the popularity of augmented reality games like Pokémon Go, it is conceivable that a game like Nerve could exist in our near future.
But this is where the film starts to fall apart. In the third act, the film hastily transitions into a social commentary of the anonymity of the internet, mob think and what we are willing to share online. While I understand this is a message that seem appropriate a story like this, that message would have been better served in a sinister film like the aforementioned, 13 Sins, and not in a movie which up to that point, felt that it was headed towards being an inspiring and uplifting film. It doesn’t help that the resolution of that social commentary was comical in its execution that completely pulls you out of the film. It was an unnecessary turn that wanted us to focus on the game Nerve rather than the characters the story made us care about. It’s a shame really because up until that point, the film Nerve was fun, enjoyable and inspiring, only to fall apart for no real reason other than to make a weak attempt at being something more than a teen movie.
I am sure the young adult/teenage audience this film is marketed towards will enjoy Nerve, but this film is really more of a rental or at most, a matinee.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated News of the World (2020) in Movies
Jan 17, 2021
Strongly Acted and Directed
Pound for pound, Tom Hanks is the best actor of this generation. From his big screen debut in SPLASH to his Oscar Nominated turn in BIG to his back-to-back Oscar wins for PHILADELPHIA and FORREST GUMP to more recent works like SULLY and THE POST, Hanks’ “everyman goodness” quality shines through the screen and makes him a screen presence that cannot be ignored.
And in his latest effort, the Paul Greengrass Directed NEWS OF THE WORLD, Hanks uses every molecule of his screen presence to keep the audience’s attention in a slow-paced, moody character study.
Based on the novel by Paulette Jiles, NEWS OF THE WORLD takes place in a post-Civil War Texas where a former Confederate Captain makes a living by going from town to town and reading the news to them. A chance encounter with a twice orphaned young girl alters the lives of both of them.
Writer/Director Paul Greengrass is most known for quick-cut action films like the BOURNE series or the criminally underrated GREEN ROOM, so he would seem - at first glance - as an unusual choice to adapt and direct this character study, but look further at Greengrass’ resume and you will find - in films such as UNITED 93 and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS - an ability to tell a story that is driven more by character than by action.
And this combination of Director and Actor works well for NEWS OF THE WORLD is a languidly paced piece that has a somber mood and look but Greengrass avoids the temptation of lingering on scenes or pictures too long (and there are some wonderful images captured by Greengrass and Cinemotgrapher Darius Wolski) to tell a story of a man who needs to rediscover and remake himself.
And Hanks is more than equal to the task of bringing the pragmatic, introspective Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd character to life in a way that makes him intriguing and not boring. Hanks ability to show inherent decency in a look or a gesture is the stuff of legends and when he speaks, you listen. Which is good for Hanks is in every scene in this film and his performance needs to strongly capture the audience for this film to work - and he is more than equal to this task - so strong is Hanks in this role that I would not be surprised if there is another Oscar nomination in Tom’s near future.
Newcomer Helena Zegal is “just fine” in the other main role in this film - the young girl that Captain Kidd encounters, Johnna. This young girl is silent and shut down for most of the film and Zegal performs “shut down and silent” well. Also along for brief cameo roles of characters that Captain Kidd encounters on his journey is a bevy of wonderfully cast character actors that include Mare Winnigham, Ray McKinnon, Bill Camp and the always interesting to watch Elizabeth Marvel.
As is often the case in these sorts of films, the music/soundtrack becomes a vital part of the story that unfolds and 8 time Oscar nominated composer James Newton Howard (THE PRINCE OF TIDES) is more than up to the task. The music is another character in this film and helps set the mood along the journey.
But make no mistake, this is Hanks’ film - and he is VERY good in this. Like MIDNIGHT SKY (reviewed last month), this movie will not be for everyone - and many, many folks are going to tell me that they checked this movie out on my recommendation and were bored by it. But…if you click into the mood, motion and energy of what Greengrass is showing, you will be rewarded with an emotionally rich and complex character study.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And in his latest effort, the Paul Greengrass Directed NEWS OF THE WORLD, Hanks uses every molecule of his screen presence to keep the audience’s attention in a slow-paced, moody character study.
Based on the novel by Paulette Jiles, NEWS OF THE WORLD takes place in a post-Civil War Texas where a former Confederate Captain makes a living by going from town to town and reading the news to them. A chance encounter with a twice orphaned young girl alters the lives of both of them.
Writer/Director Paul Greengrass is most known for quick-cut action films like the BOURNE series or the criminally underrated GREEN ROOM, so he would seem - at first glance - as an unusual choice to adapt and direct this character study, but look further at Greengrass’ resume and you will find - in films such as UNITED 93 and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS - an ability to tell a story that is driven more by character than by action.
And this combination of Director and Actor works well for NEWS OF THE WORLD is a languidly paced piece that has a somber mood and look but Greengrass avoids the temptation of lingering on scenes or pictures too long (and there are some wonderful images captured by Greengrass and Cinemotgrapher Darius Wolski) to tell a story of a man who needs to rediscover and remake himself.
And Hanks is more than equal to the task of bringing the pragmatic, introspective Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd character to life in a way that makes him intriguing and not boring. Hanks ability to show inherent decency in a look or a gesture is the stuff of legends and when he speaks, you listen. Which is good for Hanks is in every scene in this film and his performance needs to strongly capture the audience for this film to work - and he is more than equal to this task - so strong is Hanks in this role that I would not be surprised if there is another Oscar nomination in Tom’s near future.
Newcomer Helena Zegal is “just fine” in the other main role in this film - the young girl that Captain Kidd encounters, Johnna. This young girl is silent and shut down for most of the film and Zegal performs “shut down and silent” well. Also along for brief cameo roles of characters that Captain Kidd encounters on his journey is a bevy of wonderfully cast character actors that include Mare Winnigham, Ray McKinnon, Bill Camp and the always interesting to watch Elizabeth Marvel.
As is often the case in these sorts of films, the music/soundtrack becomes a vital part of the story that unfolds and 8 time Oscar nominated composer James Newton Howard (THE PRINCE OF TIDES) is more than up to the task. The music is another character in this film and helps set the mood along the journey.
But make no mistake, this is Hanks’ film - and he is VERY good in this. Like MIDNIGHT SKY (reviewed last month), this movie will not be for everyone - and many, many folks are going to tell me that they checked this movie out on my recommendation and were bored by it. But…if you click into the mood, motion and energy of what Greengrass is showing, you will be rewarded with an emotionally rich and complex character study.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Origen: A True Story Of Evil
Peter J. Perry and Kathleen Sumpton
8.0
Rate It
Book
Have you ever come face to face with the devil? In a tapestry of sports, business, and dating, there...
True Crime
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Mars Needs Moms (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Milo is your typical 9-year-old boy who doesn’t like doing chores, eating his vegetables or getting disciplined by his mother. But because his mother makes him do his chores and eat his vegetables and scolds him when he doesn’t, she’s made herself the prime target for Martians who need her great mothering skills. Apparently, Martians are “hatched” and raised by “nanny-bots” that are programmed with an Earthling mother’s caregiving and disciplinary abilities. Of course, not any Earthling mother will do. Bypassed are those who spoil their child or fail to care for their child’s safety and wellbeing. So when Milo is spied dutifully, albeit grudgingly, doing as he’s told by his mother, she becomes Mars’ candidate for abduction, because, as the movie title states, Mars needs moms.
On the night Milo’s mom is abducted, Milo (enacted by Seth Green, voiced by Seth Dusky) wakes up in time to witness her being loaded onto a spaceship and he quickly becomes a stowaway. On the red planet, he’s rescued by Gribbler, a chubby, fast-talking, tech-savvy human (voiced by Dan Fogler) who helps him devise a plan to save Milo’s mom, a recognizable Joan Cusack, in voice and, somewhat creepily, in CGI’d face. The two are up against an army of female Martians lead by The Supervisor (voiced by Mindy Sterling) a mean, old Martian. Think Frau Farbissina as a mean E.T. Luckily, Milo and Gribbler find an ally in a rebel Martian named Ki (voiced by Elisabeth Harnois). Milo has less than 6 hours to get to his mom before she’s programmed into the nanny-bots and destroyed by the process. Soon, it’s a race against time for Milo, Gribbler and Ki as they run around endless corridors, hurtle through chutes, tumble down trash mountains, splash into other-worldly caves and fall off cliffs.
Based on a children’s novel by cartoonist Berkeley Breathed, the film is produced by Robert Zemeckis and directed by Simon Wells in performance-capture 3D, a technique pioneered by Zemeckis in Polar Express and used again in A Christmas Carol. In performance-capture filming, actors are covered in sensors that capture their actions and expressions to animate their digital characters. During the end credits, a sampling of outtakes show the actors in their sensor suits physically acting out various scenes. I have to admit, the most entertaining part of the movie for me was watching Seth Green and Dan Fogler literally throw themselves into their characters.
Even with a run time of 88 minutes, kids around Milo’s age and younger may remain enthralled to the end simply from the countdown suspense. Older kids, maybe not. Yes, the high-point of the tale is Milo’s realization of how truly important his mom is to him. But even with all the running and tumbling around, the story takes a long, meandering walk to get to that point. While the technological achievements of 3D animation get more and more impressive, if the story doesn’t captivate or inspire, it’s practically a wasted effort, especially when watching in 2D would not take much away from the effects.
On the night Milo’s mom is abducted, Milo (enacted by Seth Green, voiced by Seth Dusky) wakes up in time to witness her being loaded onto a spaceship and he quickly becomes a stowaway. On the red planet, he’s rescued by Gribbler, a chubby, fast-talking, tech-savvy human (voiced by Dan Fogler) who helps him devise a plan to save Milo’s mom, a recognizable Joan Cusack, in voice and, somewhat creepily, in CGI’d face. The two are up against an army of female Martians lead by The Supervisor (voiced by Mindy Sterling) a mean, old Martian. Think Frau Farbissina as a mean E.T. Luckily, Milo and Gribbler find an ally in a rebel Martian named Ki (voiced by Elisabeth Harnois). Milo has less than 6 hours to get to his mom before she’s programmed into the nanny-bots and destroyed by the process. Soon, it’s a race against time for Milo, Gribbler and Ki as they run around endless corridors, hurtle through chutes, tumble down trash mountains, splash into other-worldly caves and fall off cliffs.
Based on a children’s novel by cartoonist Berkeley Breathed, the film is produced by Robert Zemeckis and directed by Simon Wells in performance-capture 3D, a technique pioneered by Zemeckis in Polar Express and used again in A Christmas Carol. In performance-capture filming, actors are covered in sensors that capture their actions and expressions to animate their digital characters. During the end credits, a sampling of outtakes show the actors in their sensor suits physically acting out various scenes. I have to admit, the most entertaining part of the movie for me was watching Seth Green and Dan Fogler literally throw themselves into their characters.
Even with a run time of 88 minutes, kids around Milo’s age and younger may remain enthralled to the end simply from the countdown suspense. Older kids, maybe not. Yes, the high-point of the tale is Milo’s realization of how truly important his mom is to him. But even with all the running and tumbling around, the story takes a long, meandering walk to get to that point. While the technological achievements of 3D animation get more and more impressive, if the story doesn’t captivate or inspire, it’s practically a wasted effort, especially when watching in 2D would not take much away from the effects.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Power of the Dog (2021) in Movies
Dec 7, 2021
Deep and Layered
If the movie you are watching has a long shot of wheat blowing in the wind, then you are watching a character drama. If that same film also includes a 5 minute scene of someone braiding rope, then you have THE POWER OF THE DOG.
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
IT… didn’t really float my boat.
IT is based on the Stephen King novel, and tells the disturbing recurring events that happen within the town of Derry in Maine. Kids keep disappearing and sightings of a spooky clown, other visitations and red balloons occur. A group of bullied high school kids – one directly impacted by the disappearances – work to get to the bottom of the supernatural goings on. (Fortunately they don’t have a dog called Scooby).
I had in mind that with the disturbing and dangerous “clowning around” that happened in the summer of 2016 that this film had been shot a while ago and the release delayed until now for fear of adding ‘clown-flavoured fuel’ to the fire. But it appears that filming only completed in September of last year, so that appears not to be the case.
The film starts memorably and brutally with the “drain scene” from the trailer. And very effective it is too. “Great!” you think… this is a spookfest that has legs! Unfortunately, for me at least, it all went downhill from there. The film really doesn’t seem to know WHAT it’s trying to be. There are elements of “Stand By Me”; elements of “Alien”; elements of “The Conjuring”, all thrown into a cinematic blender and pulsed well.
The most endearing aspects of the movie are the interactions of the small-town kids, with this aspect of the film bearing the closest comparison with J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8”. This is carried by the great performances of the young actors involved, with Jaeden Lieberher (so memorable in “Midnight Special”) as Bill; Jeremy Ray Taylor (“Ant Man”) as Ben (‘the chubby one’); and Finn Wolfhard, in his big-screen premiere and sporting an absurd set of glasses, as the wise-cracking Ritchie.
Standout for my though was the then 14-year old Sophia Lillis as Beverly (the nearest equivalent to the Elle Fanning role in “Super 8”). This young lady has SUCH screen presence, reminiscent of Emma Watson in the Harry Potter films. I think she is a name to watch!
While commenting on the acting I do need to acknowledge Bill Skarsgård (“Atomic Blonde” and son of Stellan Skarsgård) who is creepily effective as Pennywise the clown.
Having a film that just centred on the pubescent interplay between the youngsters and their battles against the near-psychopathic school bully Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton, “Captain Fantastic”) would have kept me well-entertained for two hours. However, in the same way that the hugely over-inflated Sci-Fi ending of “Super 8” rather detracted from that film, so the clown-related story popping up all the time just irritated me to distraction. (“WILL YOU JUST FECK OFF AND LEAVE US TO FIND OUT WHO BEVERLY GETS OFF WITH???!!”)
While the film has a number of good jump-scares, a lot of them – especially those with excessive use of CGI – just don’t really work. There are normally no “outcomes” from the scares. It’s all a bit like a ghost train where the carriage rounds a corner, something jumps out, and then the carriage moves on round the corner again! What makes a great horror film is where the “science” of the horror is well thought through. “Alien” was an exceptional example of that, where the science wasn’t just “physics” but also “biology”. Here (and I’m not sure whether this is true to the book… this is one of Stephen King’s I haven’t read) there seems to be no rules involved at all. Things happen fairly randomly: shape-shifting and effects on physical objects happen with no rational explanation; the kids can see things adults can’t see. (Why?). In fact the “adults” – the usual mix of Stephen King dysfunctional small-town crazies – seem to have no significant part in the story at all. It’s all like some lame teenage fantasy where actions (a number of individuals in the story meet their demise) seem to carry no legal consequences whatsoever. I half expected Bill to wake up – Dallas style – at the end and realise it had all been an “awful dream”!
In particular, the denouement is highly dissatisfying. An opportunity for a (very black) twist in the plot is discarded. Pennywise the clown’s departure is both lame and unconvincing. And there are numerous loose ends that are never properly tied down (what was that “floaters descending” dialogue about?…. it was just never followed through!).
It’s not all bad though. The location shoots in Bangor, Maine and the Ontario countryside are all beautifully rendered by cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung (“Stoker”) and where the film clicks with the young cast it clicks well and enjoyably. I just wish that the overall film wasn’t just such a jumbled-up mess. Blame for that must lie with the screenwriting team and director Andy Muschietti (“Mama”). I’m going to give it a kicking in my rating, since with all the marketing build-up it was certainly a disappointment. I see though that at the time of writing that this film sports an unfathomably high imdb rating of 8.0/10 so I’ll acknowledge that somebody must have seen something more in this than I did!!
I had in mind that with the disturbing and dangerous “clowning around” that happened in the summer of 2016 that this film had been shot a while ago and the release delayed until now for fear of adding ‘clown-flavoured fuel’ to the fire. But it appears that filming only completed in September of last year, so that appears not to be the case.
The film starts memorably and brutally with the “drain scene” from the trailer. And very effective it is too. “Great!” you think… this is a spookfest that has legs! Unfortunately, for me at least, it all went downhill from there. The film really doesn’t seem to know WHAT it’s trying to be. There are elements of “Stand By Me”; elements of “Alien”; elements of “The Conjuring”, all thrown into a cinematic blender and pulsed well.
The most endearing aspects of the movie are the interactions of the small-town kids, with this aspect of the film bearing the closest comparison with J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8”. This is carried by the great performances of the young actors involved, with Jaeden Lieberher (so memorable in “Midnight Special”) as Bill; Jeremy Ray Taylor (“Ant Man”) as Ben (‘the chubby one’); and Finn Wolfhard, in his big-screen premiere and sporting an absurd set of glasses, as the wise-cracking Ritchie.
Standout for my though was the then 14-year old Sophia Lillis as Beverly (the nearest equivalent to the Elle Fanning role in “Super 8”). This young lady has SUCH screen presence, reminiscent of Emma Watson in the Harry Potter films. I think she is a name to watch!
While commenting on the acting I do need to acknowledge Bill Skarsgård (“Atomic Blonde” and son of Stellan Skarsgård) who is creepily effective as Pennywise the clown.
Having a film that just centred on the pubescent interplay between the youngsters and their battles against the near-psychopathic school bully Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton, “Captain Fantastic”) would have kept me well-entertained for two hours. However, in the same way that the hugely over-inflated Sci-Fi ending of “Super 8” rather detracted from that film, so the clown-related story popping up all the time just irritated me to distraction. (“WILL YOU JUST FECK OFF AND LEAVE US TO FIND OUT WHO BEVERLY GETS OFF WITH???!!”)
While the film has a number of good jump-scares, a lot of them – especially those with excessive use of CGI – just don’t really work. There are normally no “outcomes” from the scares. It’s all a bit like a ghost train where the carriage rounds a corner, something jumps out, and then the carriage moves on round the corner again! What makes a great horror film is where the “science” of the horror is well thought through. “Alien” was an exceptional example of that, where the science wasn’t just “physics” but also “biology”. Here (and I’m not sure whether this is true to the book… this is one of Stephen King’s I haven’t read) there seems to be no rules involved at all. Things happen fairly randomly: shape-shifting and effects on physical objects happen with no rational explanation; the kids can see things adults can’t see. (Why?). In fact the “adults” – the usual mix of Stephen King dysfunctional small-town crazies – seem to have no significant part in the story at all. It’s all like some lame teenage fantasy where actions (a number of individuals in the story meet their demise) seem to carry no legal consequences whatsoever. I half expected Bill to wake up – Dallas style – at the end and realise it had all been an “awful dream”!
In particular, the denouement is highly dissatisfying. An opportunity for a (very black) twist in the plot is discarded. Pennywise the clown’s departure is both lame and unconvincing. And there are numerous loose ends that are never properly tied down (what was that “floaters descending” dialogue about?…. it was just never followed through!).
It’s not all bad though. The location shoots in Bangor, Maine and the Ontario countryside are all beautifully rendered by cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung (“Stoker”) and where the film clicks with the young cast it clicks well and enjoyably. I just wish that the overall film wasn’t just such a jumbled-up mess. Blame for that must lie with the screenwriting team and director Andy Muschietti (“Mama”). I’m going to give it a kicking in my rating, since with all the marketing build-up it was certainly a disappointment. I see though that at the time of writing that this film sports an unfathomably high imdb rating of 8.0/10 so I’ll acknowledge that somebody must have seen something more in this than I did!!