Search
Search results
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated There's Something About Mary (1998) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
I remember trying to watch this about 11 or so years ago, and turning it off after about an hour because of how middling it was - suffice to say my thoughts haven't really changed. Can't even begin to fathom what people think this has over đđ¶đźđŁ & đđ¶đźđŁđŠđł. I admit there's a pretty terrific analog in here about all these deplorable, delusional men coming together in their shittiness while trying to fool this poor woman into loving them with increasingly ludicrous schemes - but it isn't funny enough to justify waiting until the last act to realize that, especially with this crawling runtime. Let me clarify: Ben Stiller beating up the coked-out dog was *hysterical*, and it does have a handful of other notably funny moments but they're spread thin. The title character is given absolutely nothing to work with besides Diaz's capable talent despite having "something about" her, but I think that inadvertently works given how she's effectively a nonentity template for these guys to project their naĂŻve sociopathic fantasies onto. Sure as hell won't knock the cast though, they're all game playing a troupe of model Farrelly goofballs. Honestly there are just... better comedies out there, dudes - even by these guys.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wind River (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Survive or Surrender.
Of all of the movie released I missed during 2016 (typically due to work commitments) this one was one near the top of my list. Iâm a fan of both Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen, and the setting and story to this one really appealed.
And now Iâve caught up with it, I am not disappointed⊠certainly one that would have muscled its way well into my top 20 of last year.
Wind River is an Indian reservation in Wyoming (although its filmed in Utah). Natalie (Kelsey Asbille), a young Indian teen, is found in the snow raped and murdered by local tracker Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner, âArrivalâ, âMission Impossible: Rogue Nationâ). The local police, led by Ben (Graham Greene), are surprised when a passionate but naive young FBI officer â Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen, âAvengers: Age of Ultronâ) â arrives out of a blizzard without remotely sensible clothing. So begins an investigation into who committed the crime, where local knowledge and skills are more applicable than all the CSI-knowhow in the world.
Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) and Ben (Graham Greene) get to work.
This film is everything âThe Snowmanâ should have been and wasnât. At its heart, there are some memorable relationships established. Gil Birmingham (so good as Jeff Bridgesâ right-hand man in âHell or High Waterâ) plays Natalieâs dad, grieving and railing against all outsiders other than Cory, who he has a deep and close relationship with. For Cory has a back-story that goes beyond just him marrying into (and now separated from) Wilma (Julia Jones), a woman from the reservation.
Cowboys and Indians. Cory (Jeremy Renner) and Martin (Gil Birmingham) having a deep and moving discussion.
Cory himself has a role that is deep and multi-layered, and Renner is the perfect choice for it (although many scenes could have been cut and spliced into this from his â I thought really strong â Bourne spin-off âThe Bourne Legacyâ!). Here he has both action scenes and raw emotional scenes to tackle, and although perhaps he doesnât quite pull off the latter to perfection, he comes pretty close.
âDo you wanna build a snowman?â. Cory is about to make a grim discovery.
Elizabeth Olsen â who seriously deserves more meaty roles like this â plays a âflibbertigibbetâ girl (thereâs an old word that needs more airtime!) who turns out to have real internal steel. Yet another admirable female role model. #She-do!
The film also paints a vivid and intolerable picture of the dead-end nature of reservation life for many, with poor decisions as a teen (and weâve all made those) here not being forgiven for the rest of your life.
Written and directed by Taylor Sheridan, who also wrote âSicarioâ, âHell or High Waterâ and the soon to appear Sicario sequel, âSoldadoâ, pens some fine and memorable dialogue. âShouldnât we wait for some backup?â asks Banner. Ben replies âThis isnât the land of backup. This is the land of youâre on your ownâ. Itâs a film with useful tips as well, like NEVER, EVER go for a run in seriously sub-zero temperatures! (As Iâm penning this review in sub-zero Canada at the moment, this is timely advice. #skiptheruntoday.) Sheridan won a Cannes Film Festival award as director for this, but arguably itâs a shame the script has been largely overlooked for the major awards so far.
And that land is one of the stars of the film as well. Filmed around the town of Park City in Utah, itâs gloriously snowy countryside with impressive mountain scenery.
Bleak but impressive, Utah is one of the stars.
My only quibble with the movie is that there are some elements of the plot that donât quite gel properly. At various times, the heavens open and it buckets down â and I mean buckets down â with snow that must add inches to the landscape in minutes. And yet Cory can still point out tracks in the snow that were made days before? Huh? Also (without spoilers) some elements of communications are also conveniently unreliable when they need to be.
Will this be for everyone? While I commented that the excellent âThree Billboards Outside Ebbing.Missouriâ (which shares similar background subject matter) did NOT have flashback scenes to the rape, this film does go there, and so might be upsetting for some viewers.
Girl in Trouble. Kelsey Asbille plays the victim Natalie.
But itâs a high-class, intelligent crime thriller that takes âMexican standoffâ to a whole new level. Recommended.
And now Iâve caught up with it, I am not disappointed⊠certainly one that would have muscled its way well into my top 20 of last year.
Wind River is an Indian reservation in Wyoming (although its filmed in Utah). Natalie (Kelsey Asbille), a young Indian teen, is found in the snow raped and murdered by local tracker Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner, âArrivalâ, âMission Impossible: Rogue Nationâ). The local police, led by Ben (Graham Greene), are surprised when a passionate but naive young FBI officer â Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen, âAvengers: Age of Ultronâ) â arrives out of a blizzard without remotely sensible clothing. So begins an investigation into who committed the crime, where local knowledge and skills are more applicable than all the CSI-knowhow in the world.
Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) and Ben (Graham Greene) get to work.
This film is everything âThe Snowmanâ should have been and wasnât. At its heart, there are some memorable relationships established. Gil Birmingham (so good as Jeff Bridgesâ right-hand man in âHell or High Waterâ) plays Natalieâs dad, grieving and railing against all outsiders other than Cory, who he has a deep and close relationship with. For Cory has a back-story that goes beyond just him marrying into (and now separated from) Wilma (Julia Jones), a woman from the reservation.
Cowboys and Indians. Cory (Jeremy Renner) and Martin (Gil Birmingham) having a deep and moving discussion.
Cory himself has a role that is deep and multi-layered, and Renner is the perfect choice for it (although many scenes could have been cut and spliced into this from his â I thought really strong â Bourne spin-off âThe Bourne Legacyâ!). Here he has both action scenes and raw emotional scenes to tackle, and although perhaps he doesnât quite pull off the latter to perfection, he comes pretty close.
âDo you wanna build a snowman?â. Cory is about to make a grim discovery.
Elizabeth Olsen â who seriously deserves more meaty roles like this â plays a âflibbertigibbetâ girl (thereâs an old word that needs more airtime!) who turns out to have real internal steel. Yet another admirable female role model. #She-do!
The film also paints a vivid and intolerable picture of the dead-end nature of reservation life for many, with poor decisions as a teen (and weâve all made those) here not being forgiven for the rest of your life.
Written and directed by Taylor Sheridan, who also wrote âSicarioâ, âHell or High Waterâ and the soon to appear Sicario sequel, âSoldadoâ, pens some fine and memorable dialogue. âShouldnât we wait for some backup?â asks Banner. Ben replies âThis isnât the land of backup. This is the land of youâre on your ownâ. Itâs a film with useful tips as well, like NEVER, EVER go for a run in seriously sub-zero temperatures! (As Iâm penning this review in sub-zero Canada at the moment, this is timely advice. #skiptheruntoday.) Sheridan won a Cannes Film Festival award as director for this, but arguably itâs a shame the script has been largely overlooked for the major awards so far.
And that land is one of the stars of the film as well. Filmed around the town of Park City in Utah, itâs gloriously snowy countryside with impressive mountain scenery.
Bleak but impressive, Utah is one of the stars.
My only quibble with the movie is that there are some elements of the plot that donât quite gel properly. At various times, the heavens open and it buckets down â and I mean buckets down â with snow that must add inches to the landscape in minutes. And yet Cory can still point out tracks in the snow that were made days before? Huh? Also (without spoilers) some elements of communications are also conveniently unreliable when they need to be.
Will this be for everyone? While I commented that the excellent âThree Billboards Outside Ebbing.Missouriâ (which shares similar background subject matter) did NOT have flashback scenes to the rape, this film does go there, and so might be upsetting for some viewers.
Girl in Trouble. Kelsey Asbille plays the victim Natalie.
But itâs a high-class, intelligent crime thriller that takes âMexican standoffâ to a whole new level. Recommended.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Zoolander 2 (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Fashion Faux pas
It pains me to say it, but Ben Stiller hasnât really been relevant for quite some time. His last film, the final movie in the Night at the Museum franchise struggled with critics and audiences alike.
Once dubbed part of the so-called âFratpackâ, alongside Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to name a few, their success has fallen by the wayside since introducing rising stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt to the comedy genre.
Here, Stiller gives one of his most memorable characters, Derek Zoolander, a sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is it worthy of your time?
In Zoolander 2, titular male model Derek Zoolander has fallen out of favour with the public and has retreated into hiding away from the prying eyes of the media to focus on getting his life back together. By a stroke of luck, a chance encounter with old friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) sets them on a path to help stop high-profile celebrity deaths, finding out who is behind them in the process.
The story is a little nondescript with the intentions of both the âheroesâ and âvillainsâ not quite clear. There are elements of the first live-action Scooby Doo film in its design â and thatâs not a good thing.
An all-star cast that includes the exceptionally beautiful Penelope Cruz, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig is bolstered by more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Justin Bieber, Anna Wintour, Sting, Ariana Grande, MC Hammer and Kiefer Sutherland are just a few on a list that is nearly endless.
Unfortunately, these cameos are the highlights in a film full of recycled gags and very poor camerawork. As we follow our two leads on their journey across a dreary looking Rome, Zoolander 2 drags with only a couple of laughs in the first hour â something the first one managed to avoid.
In fact, things are so bad, they only pick up in the final 30 minutes when Will Ferrellâs villain Mugatu makes a much-needed appearance, steering this near-trainwreck of a comedy into fairly decent territory. Ferrelâs comic timing is as usual, on point, but itâs unfortunate he puts Stiller and Wilson to shame.
Penelope Cruz is her ever-watchable self but piles on the shtick to such an extent that it takes away from her character, making her almost cartoonish in personality and actions.
Elsewhere, the clever parodies relating to the fashion industry are taken away; instead Zoolander 2 is lumped with cheap laughs that constantly try too hard to raise even the smallest smirk from its audience.
Overall, Zoolander 2 is not a patch on its predecessor with Will Ferrell providing the film with its only genuine moments of hilarity and this comes within the final 30 minutes of a 102 minute feature. Stiller may have tried to resurrect one of his finest characters, but in doing so, has tarnished that reputation.
Much like its lead star, Zoolander 2 tries desperately to stay relevant, and unfortunately this type of comedy just doesnât cut the mustard anymore.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/21/a-fashion-faux-pas-zoolander-2-review/
Once dubbed part of the so-called âFratpackâ, alongside Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to name a few, their success has fallen by the wayside since introducing rising stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt to the comedy genre.
Here, Stiller gives one of his most memorable characters, Derek Zoolander, a sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is it worthy of your time?
In Zoolander 2, titular male model Derek Zoolander has fallen out of favour with the public and has retreated into hiding away from the prying eyes of the media to focus on getting his life back together. By a stroke of luck, a chance encounter with old friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) sets them on a path to help stop high-profile celebrity deaths, finding out who is behind them in the process.
The story is a little nondescript with the intentions of both the âheroesâ and âvillainsâ not quite clear. There are elements of the first live-action Scooby Doo film in its design â and thatâs not a good thing.
An all-star cast that includes the exceptionally beautiful Penelope Cruz, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig is bolstered by more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Justin Bieber, Anna Wintour, Sting, Ariana Grande, MC Hammer and Kiefer Sutherland are just a few on a list that is nearly endless.
Unfortunately, these cameos are the highlights in a film full of recycled gags and very poor camerawork. As we follow our two leads on their journey across a dreary looking Rome, Zoolander 2 drags with only a couple of laughs in the first hour â something the first one managed to avoid.
In fact, things are so bad, they only pick up in the final 30 minutes when Will Ferrellâs villain Mugatu makes a much-needed appearance, steering this near-trainwreck of a comedy into fairly decent territory. Ferrelâs comic timing is as usual, on point, but itâs unfortunate he puts Stiller and Wilson to shame.
Penelope Cruz is her ever-watchable self but piles on the shtick to such an extent that it takes away from her character, making her almost cartoonish in personality and actions.
Elsewhere, the clever parodies relating to the fashion industry are taken away; instead Zoolander 2 is lumped with cheap laughs that constantly try too hard to raise even the smallest smirk from its audience.
Overall, Zoolander 2 is not a patch on its predecessor with Will Ferrell providing the film with its only genuine moments of hilarity and this comes within the final 30 minutes of a 102 minute feature. Stiller may have tried to resurrect one of his finest characters, but in doing so, has tarnished that reputation.
Much like its lead star, Zoolander 2 tries desperately to stay relevant, and unfortunately this type of comedy just doesnât cut the mustard anymore.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/21/a-fashion-faux-pas-zoolander-2-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 16, 2021
Works well enough - despite a weak villain
The Daniel Craig James Bond films are a different breed of Bond films. Instead of each one being a âone-off, fun rompâ filled with Gadgets, Villains, Beautiful Ladies and Wild Stunts, the 5 films of the âDaniel Craig eraâ of Bond films was something elseâŠgritty, serious and serialized, each film standing on itâs own but also building on the previous one to tell one long story.
It will be up to the individual to decide whether this type of storytelling works for Bond.
For me, it does.
Picking up where SPECTRE left off, NO TIME TO DIE follows Bond and his lady love from that film, Madeliene (Lea Seydoux) as they are followed and threatened by agents from SPECTRE. After an action-packed opening, Bond heads into retirement only to be drawn back in.
Director Cary Fukunaga (BEASTS OF NO NATION) crafts a satisfying, if somewhat too long and dragged out, finale for Craig as Bond battles villains joined by old friends (and fiends) along the way (as a bit of a final Curtain Call for them all), meets some new allies (and adversaries) all while dealing with his own feelings.
And it is this part of the film that âBond puristsâ will be the most annoyed about. JAMES BOND HAS FEELINGS! He isnât just a âSuper-Spyâ with a quip and a gadget, Fukunaga and perennial Bond writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (along with Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge) craft a Bond that has cracks in his veneer that show doubts and fears underneath.
This rounding out of the character works for me in this film, especially if you put this film in the context of all 5 Craig Bond films. It is a natural growth for the character and one that Craig handles well.
As for the performances, regular Bond players Ralph Fiennes (M), Naomi Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Tanner) and Jeffrey Wright (CIA Agent Felix Leiter) all have a moment (or 2) to shine and they show up on the screen like old friends showing up at a going away party. Christoph Walz also reprises his role of Blofeld from SPECTRE (itâs not a spoiler, itâs in the trailers) and it was good to see Blofeld and Bond play chess one last time and Seydouxâs performance as Bondâs âlady loveâ is âgood enoughâ.
But it is the newcomers to this story that stand out to me - with one strong exception. Lashana Lynch (as a fellow 00 agent) and Billy Magnussen both shine in this film as do Ana de Armas as another femme that Bond encounters - this is the 3rd strong performance Iâve seen from the former model (following strong turns in BLADE RUNNER 2049 and opposite Craig in KNIVES OUT) and am eagerly awaiting what she will do next.
Only Rami Malek as villain Safin fails to be interesting and thatâs where this film falls down. Safinâs encounters with Bond bring the energy and excitement down, thanks to Malekâs âunderplayingâ of a role that should have been overplayed. His performance just doesnât work.
But, this is a Bond film, so the acting and plot always take a backseat to the action - and the action in this film is better than average, but not A-M-A-Z-I-N-G as one expects from Bond films. Couple that with Malekâs underwhelming performance and this Bond film will leave audiences with an unfulfilled feeling.
Unless, you are invested in the journey that Craig has taken Bond on - and the culmination of that journey to conclude this film. If you are invested in that, this film work. If you are not, it will not.
It worked for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It will be up to the individual to decide whether this type of storytelling works for Bond.
For me, it does.
Picking up where SPECTRE left off, NO TIME TO DIE follows Bond and his lady love from that film, Madeliene (Lea Seydoux) as they are followed and threatened by agents from SPECTRE. After an action-packed opening, Bond heads into retirement only to be drawn back in.
Director Cary Fukunaga (BEASTS OF NO NATION) crafts a satisfying, if somewhat too long and dragged out, finale for Craig as Bond battles villains joined by old friends (and fiends) along the way (as a bit of a final Curtain Call for them all), meets some new allies (and adversaries) all while dealing with his own feelings.
And it is this part of the film that âBond puristsâ will be the most annoyed about. JAMES BOND HAS FEELINGS! He isnât just a âSuper-Spyâ with a quip and a gadget, Fukunaga and perennial Bond writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (along with Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge) craft a Bond that has cracks in his veneer that show doubts and fears underneath.
This rounding out of the character works for me in this film, especially if you put this film in the context of all 5 Craig Bond films. It is a natural growth for the character and one that Craig handles well.
As for the performances, regular Bond players Ralph Fiennes (M), Naomi Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Tanner) and Jeffrey Wright (CIA Agent Felix Leiter) all have a moment (or 2) to shine and they show up on the screen like old friends showing up at a going away party. Christoph Walz also reprises his role of Blofeld from SPECTRE (itâs not a spoiler, itâs in the trailers) and it was good to see Blofeld and Bond play chess one last time and Seydouxâs performance as Bondâs âlady loveâ is âgood enoughâ.
But it is the newcomers to this story that stand out to me - with one strong exception. Lashana Lynch (as a fellow 00 agent) and Billy Magnussen both shine in this film as do Ana de Armas as another femme that Bond encounters - this is the 3rd strong performance Iâve seen from the former model (following strong turns in BLADE RUNNER 2049 and opposite Craig in KNIVES OUT) and am eagerly awaiting what she will do next.
Only Rami Malek as villain Safin fails to be interesting and thatâs where this film falls down. Safinâs encounters with Bond bring the energy and excitement down, thanks to Malekâs âunderplayingâ of a role that should have been overplayed. His performance just doesnât work.
But, this is a Bond film, so the acting and plot always take a backseat to the action - and the action in this film is better than average, but not A-M-A-Z-I-N-G as one expects from Bond films. Couple that with Malekâs underwhelming performance and this Bond film will leave audiences with an unfulfilled feeling.
Unless, you are invested in the journey that Craig has taken Bond on - and the culmination of that journey to conclude this film. If you are invested in that, this film work. If you are not, it will not.
It worked for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
RÉX Regent (349 KP) rated Hell's Angels (1930) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Big budget, elaborate air combat scenes which resulted in several deaths and Gimmick after gimmick⊠This has to be the Howard Hughesâ World War 1 epic, Hellâs Angels.
Where to begin?
Well, we follow the Routledge two brothers as they join the war effort and the Royal Air Corps. in 1914 and whilst one is a somewhat cowardly womaniser, his brother is the noble heroic type who spends the film being screwed over bey everyone in one way or another, but most notably by his girlfriend, Jean Harlow, who is so annoyingly wrong for him that it is a relief when he has heart is broken by her in the third act.
But like mots aspects of this plot, this is as messy and disjointed as everything else. We are given a story line to follow for two hours, as Hughes indulges his legendary love of flying to create some of the best dog fight sequences ever committed to film. They are real, epic and effective in conveying the thrilling danger of these world war one battles.
But this is a film of gimmick. Pushing the pre-code envelope with sex and bad language, this was originally conceived as a silent movie and was re-written and re-shot to become the sound movie whcih we have to today and there in clearly lies the problem. What we end up is a movie cobbled together, with silence sequences being converted to sound, the poor acting from its star James Hall as the idealistic Roy Routledge, Jean Harlow, replacing the original silent star Gretta Nissen for this sound version, excelling in her role as his trampy girlfriend and Ben Lyon as the weaker brother, Monte, but the real star of this show are the special effects.
But of the human stars, Harlow, presented here in the only colour footage known to exist of the tragic star, who would die at the young age of 26 just seven years later, probably delivers one of the best performances in the whole picture, certainly outshining her male co-stars.
Of the special effects though, the use of 2-tone Technicolor, which was actually shot with the Metrocolor system but processed by Technicolor, in one sequence as the group are all together at a party, as well as the classical use of tints during some other scenes, add a vibrancy to the project. But this also can have a jarring effect, especially as we leave the colour scenes and wrap up thet sequences in black and white.
But the model effects, notably the munition raid at the end and the Zeppelin bombing London scenes are spectacular, especially for the time. The other notable gimmick which has yet to be transferred to the small screen, was the original use of what was called Magnascope back in 1930.
This was obviously only used at high end theaters but this paved the way for what IMAX are doing now, by blowing up the aerial scenes into a larger screen format from the 1.20:1 ratio which the the rest of film was presented. But when you add all this up you have got a mess!
Magnascope, technicolor scenes, tinted scenes, daring aerial battles, a half arsed love story and an image of world war which was a kin to that of Michael Bayâs Pearl Harborâs (2001) view of World War 2! But this is what this is. An early, lavish popcorn blockbuster, with little to offer but cinematic thrills, which it succeeds at without any doubt.
The action is great, the plot is mediocre to say the least but as film, it does offer a brief insight into how cinema audiences saw the Great War back in 1930 and you can not help but think that this audience was only nine years away from the next one as we watch this.
pictureBut the ending was grim, with noble ends rounding off a story of brotherly love and love of duty and country, seems overblown considering what we had had to sit through but still, by the end, is anybody really routing for the Routledge brothers to have a happy ending?
I certainly was not. But this ending is the nearest thing that this film has to a story arc, as is pays off the opening act where Roy risks his life fighting a duel for his cowardly brother against the very German officer who is about to have them executed.
Duty wins out and Monte sees the light at the end after a very melodramatic death scene.
But having said all that, this film is worth it for the action alone and for film buffs, the only colour footage of Jean Harlow.
Where to begin?
Well, we follow the Routledge two brothers as they join the war effort and the Royal Air Corps. in 1914 and whilst one is a somewhat cowardly womaniser, his brother is the noble heroic type who spends the film being screwed over bey everyone in one way or another, but most notably by his girlfriend, Jean Harlow, who is so annoyingly wrong for him that it is a relief when he has heart is broken by her in the third act.
But like mots aspects of this plot, this is as messy and disjointed as everything else. We are given a story line to follow for two hours, as Hughes indulges his legendary love of flying to create some of the best dog fight sequences ever committed to film. They are real, epic and effective in conveying the thrilling danger of these world war one battles.
But this is a film of gimmick. Pushing the pre-code envelope with sex and bad language, this was originally conceived as a silent movie and was re-written and re-shot to become the sound movie whcih we have to today and there in clearly lies the problem. What we end up is a movie cobbled together, with silence sequences being converted to sound, the poor acting from its star James Hall as the idealistic Roy Routledge, Jean Harlow, replacing the original silent star Gretta Nissen for this sound version, excelling in her role as his trampy girlfriend and Ben Lyon as the weaker brother, Monte, but the real star of this show are the special effects.
But of the human stars, Harlow, presented here in the only colour footage known to exist of the tragic star, who would die at the young age of 26 just seven years later, probably delivers one of the best performances in the whole picture, certainly outshining her male co-stars.
Of the special effects though, the use of 2-tone Technicolor, which was actually shot with the Metrocolor system but processed by Technicolor, in one sequence as the group are all together at a party, as well as the classical use of tints during some other scenes, add a vibrancy to the project. But this also can have a jarring effect, especially as we leave the colour scenes and wrap up thet sequences in black and white.
But the model effects, notably the munition raid at the end and the Zeppelin bombing London scenes are spectacular, especially for the time. The other notable gimmick which has yet to be transferred to the small screen, was the original use of what was called Magnascope back in 1930.
This was obviously only used at high end theaters but this paved the way for what IMAX are doing now, by blowing up the aerial scenes into a larger screen format from the 1.20:1 ratio which the the rest of film was presented. But when you add all this up you have got a mess!
Magnascope, technicolor scenes, tinted scenes, daring aerial battles, a half arsed love story and an image of world war which was a kin to that of Michael Bayâs Pearl Harborâs (2001) view of World War 2! But this is what this is. An early, lavish popcorn blockbuster, with little to offer but cinematic thrills, which it succeeds at without any doubt.
The action is great, the plot is mediocre to say the least but as film, it does offer a brief insight into how cinema audiences saw the Great War back in 1930 and you can not help but think that this audience was only nine years away from the next one as we watch this.
pictureBut the ending was grim, with noble ends rounding off a story of brotherly love and love of duty and country, seems overblown considering what we had had to sit through but still, by the end, is anybody really routing for the Routledge brothers to have a happy ending?
I certainly was not. But this ending is the nearest thing that this film has to a story arc, as is pays off the opening act where Roy risks his life fighting a duel for his cowardly brother against the very German officer who is about to have them executed.
Duty wins out and Monte sees the light at the end after a very melodramatic death scene.
But having said all that, this film is worth it for the action alone and for film buffs, the only colour footage of Jean Harlow.