Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 7, 2019
Hader steals the film
The "secret sauce" of the first chapter of IT (based on the horror novel by Stephen King) was NOT the gore or scares that were thrown at the audience, it was the characters and the performances that made that first film work. The young members of the "Loser's Club" - and especially the young actors populating these characters - created people that you wanted to root and cheer for throughout their ordeal with Pennywise the Clown and the bullies of Derry.
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 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.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Jungle Book (2016) in Movies
Jul 21, 2017
Incredible CGI (2 more)
Amazing voice acting
New versions of classic songs
The King Of The Swingers
I was sceptical going in, as I’m not a huge fan of the original Disney cartoon version and the fact that the only live action performance in the movie was being delivered by a child actor definitely made me fairly dubious. However I actually enjoyed this movie. The young actor portraying Mowgli is a bit cringeworthy at times, but when you think that all he had to work with was a bunch of green screens and voiceovers, he did a remarkably good job, especially considering his age. He wasn’t anywhere near as good as Jaeden Lieberher was in Midnight Special, but he did a decent job of carrying the movie’s plot along. The CG work in this movie is mind blowing. Disney have gone all out and went for a hyper realistic style of animation and at times, even as an animator myself, I forgot that these animals and environments were cartoons and totally bought them as real world objects and environments. Also the cast is made up of Hollywood gold and all of the voice performances are spot on. Ben Kingsley does a great job as the parental panther who guides Mowgli along his journey and whoever decided to cast Bill Murray as Baloo deserves a raise, as that is a stroke of casting genius. Murray is hilarious here and his relationship with Mowgli is also fantastic. Scarlett Johannsen does a decent job as the snake, but to be honest it is more of a cameo role as she is in the movie for under five minutes. Of course it would be a crime not to mention the legend that is Christopher Walken and his fantastic performance as King Louie. He gives off a perfect blend of charm and villainy and his rendition of King Of The Swingers is also very entertaining. However, although all of the above voice performances were great, there is one that completely steals the show and that is Idris Elba as the antagonist Lion, Sher Khan. The command that Elba has over his vocal performance is incredible, he is such a threatening presence throughout the entire movie and he completely steals every single scene that he is in. Several people have also complained about the use of the music in the film, but that was actually one of my favourite parts of the film, Bare Necessities is used as more of a shanty than an actual song, and King Of The Swingers performed by Walken, is in my opinion very well implemented and serves as an awesome new take on the classic song. The one gripe that I have about the film is that, it is quite slow at times and I was left fairly bored several times, as were a lot of the kids in the theatre by the looks of it. If I didn’t have to keep an eye on the kids we were looking after I probably would have drifted off and to be honest I don’t know if they really enjoyed much either, they seemed to either be scared by Sher Khan and hiding their eyes or bored and fidgety. Although it’s hard to deny that this is a very well made movie and while not totally faithful to its source material, it is a fresh new take on the classic story for a new generation. I would like to see the film again without a wriggling child on my knee, but I did enjoy myself with this movie overall.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Jungle Book (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Disney’s animated take on Rudyard Kipling’s classic The Jungle Book is a timeless classic. My mother is even fond of telling me about the Jungle Book theme I had in my room as an infant. So it was with great interest that we covered the new live-action film version which continues a successful tradition for Disney of adapting their animated classics into live-action features. For those not familiar with the story it involves a young boy named Mowgli (Neel Sethi), who was found alone in the jungle by a panther named Bagheera (Ben Kingsley), Mowgli is put in the care of a Wolfpack under the custody of Raksha (Lupita Nyong”o), who raised him as one of her own in the ways of the pack.
Mowgli grew and thrived under this arrangement and was loved and accepted by those in his group. Unfortunately Mowgli eventually draws the attention of a tiger named Shere Khan (Idris Elba), who has a deep disliking and fear of humans and what they’re capable of and thus demands that Mowgli be turned over to him so he removed the human threat from the jungle. Unwilling to let Mowgli be killed, Bagheeera agrees to take the boy to the Human Village where he will have the protection and guidance of his people going forward.
As they embark on a journey filled with sights, sounds, splendor, and danger, they meet all sorts of new characters along the way. From the lovable Baloo (Bill Murray), to the dangerous Kaa (Scarlett Johansson), their adventure is anything but boring especially with Shere Khan constantly lurking and new dangers and surprises around every corner.
Director Jon Favreau keeps the film in line with the source material and offers a lavish and fun production that while heavy on CGI imagery never overshadows the focus being on the characters as they are what propel the story even though the jungle itself very much is a central character to the story. There is action and adventure and parent should be warned that there are a few parts that may be a bit too intense for younger viewers. That being said, the film is just an absolute delight from beginning to end and moves at a brisk enough pace that never drags. There are a couple of musical numbers included which thankfully do not undermine some of the more action intense sequences of the film which had been ramped up considerably from their animated version counterparts.
There’s been talk that a sequel is early in the planning stages and I for one would definitely love to see more adventures especially since it’s reported that the same team that brought this to the screen would be involved in the sequel. The cast is incredibly strong and supports one another very well and what makes this film so great is that like many of the Disney classics it has the broad generational appeal that will allow adults to really enjoy the film rather than feel that they’re simply along to keep the kids happy.
Disney has announced that they would plan to do several live-action adaptations of their animated classics and based on their recent track record of success, in doing so I can’t wait to see what they have next as “The Jungle Book” is an absolute delight that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2016/04/14/the-jungle-book/
Mowgli grew and thrived under this arrangement and was loved and accepted by those in his group. Unfortunately Mowgli eventually draws the attention of a tiger named Shere Khan (Idris Elba), who has a deep disliking and fear of humans and what they’re capable of and thus demands that Mowgli be turned over to him so he removed the human threat from the jungle. Unwilling to let Mowgli be killed, Bagheeera agrees to take the boy to the Human Village where he will have the protection and guidance of his people going forward.
As they embark on a journey filled with sights, sounds, splendor, and danger, they meet all sorts of new characters along the way. From the lovable Baloo (Bill Murray), to the dangerous Kaa (Scarlett Johansson), their adventure is anything but boring especially with Shere Khan constantly lurking and new dangers and surprises around every corner.
Director Jon Favreau keeps the film in line with the source material and offers a lavish and fun production that while heavy on CGI imagery never overshadows the focus being on the characters as they are what propel the story even though the jungle itself very much is a central character to the story. There is action and adventure and parent should be warned that there are a few parts that may be a bit too intense for younger viewers. That being said, the film is just an absolute delight from beginning to end and moves at a brisk enough pace that never drags. There are a couple of musical numbers included which thankfully do not undermine some of the more action intense sequences of the film which had been ramped up considerably from their animated version counterparts.
There’s been talk that a sequel is early in the planning stages and I for one would definitely love to see more adventures especially since it’s reported that the same team that brought this to the screen would be involved in the sequel. The cast is incredibly strong and supports one another very well and what makes this film so great is that like many of the Disney classics it has the broad generational appeal that will allow adults to really enjoy the film rather than feel that they’re simply along to keep the kids happy.
Disney has announced that they would plan to do several live-action adaptations of their animated classics and based on their recent track record of success, in doing so I can’t wait to see what they have next as “The Jungle Book” is an absolute delight that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2016/04/14/the-jungle-book/
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Rebecca (2020) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020
A dull adaptation
Rebecca is an adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s 1938 novel of the same name, following a young woman’s whirlwind romance and her battle to rid her new marriage and home of the shadow of her husband’s first wife.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated She Is Not Invisible in Books
Jun 24, 2019
This was not how I expected it to be. I liked the uniqueness of it, though, and how unpredictable it turned out to be.
It starts in an airport, with the protagonist and narrator (who's name we learn to be Laureth) and her little brother Benjamin. We soon discover that Laureth is blind, which provides us with a very interesting account of the events of this story. They are going to America, alone, to find their father. He's a writer, and holds his notebooks very dearly - so when Laureth gets an email about one being found in America when he's supposed to be in Switzerland (and then he fails to answer his phone) she immediately assumes something is very wrong.
This is told mostly chronologically, but with memories scattered throughout. Laureth also gives slight hints as to what will be happening later on, reinstating the fact that she is writing about past events. I quite liked this - we were told about certain memories and events that were relevant to the story at that time, nothing more, nothing less.
It turns into quite a dark, suspenseful hunt. Laureth starts to fear that her father may even have taken his own life. The pair even get cornered by a man with a knife who claims to have seen her father. His partner later breaks into their hotel room, searching for some valuable contents of her father's safe. Coincidentally, they run in to her father just moments later.
The obsession of Laureth and Ben's father is coincidences; a very interesting topic. He goes into great detail in his notebook (which we are shown throughout the book), discussing theories and particular physicists' experiences. Bit by bit, he seems to be delving deeper and deeper into the mysteries of the universe. Laureth is caught up in this - she looks for clues in every page of her dad's notebook. But is she looking too hard? Is she finding signs that aren't really there?
Laureth relies on her brother to navigate the world, and although he is only going, he is superbly helpful to her. She is adamant on being an independent young lady, and even hides her impairment from most people she meets. As she is the narrator of this book, we are given an account that does not include any visual descriptions. Instead, the other senses are used far more - sounds and feelings especially. I really liked this.
The ending was wonderful. It was different - completely unexpected. I especially liked how her "coincidental" meeting with Sam turned out to mean nothing at all. And her father's account of what had happened, and his realisation that his obsession was pointless, was so ironic. Laureth and Ben had been on this massive journey, worried their father was so caught up in his obsession that his life was in danger. They began to find strange patterns and signs everywhere - only to find out how coindences are completely fake.
And the last page was so clever, too. It was numbered 354 which is clever in itself - this number holds a massive significance throughout this book - but then there's also the hidden message that's revealed. One of the last sentences prompts you to look closely at the book, and then you find a heartwarming little phrase. I really liked this idea - it seems a bit naff, but actually worked really well.
I did feel like this was maybe a little more for younger adults (I'm nearly 18) but it was really easy to follow and quick to read. It wasn't lengthy or tiresome at all. 4 stars.
It starts in an airport, with the protagonist and narrator (who's name we learn to be Laureth) and her little brother Benjamin. We soon discover that Laureth is blind, which provides us with a very interesting account of the events of this story. They are going to America, alone, to find their father. He's a writer, and holds his notebooks very dearly - so when Laureth gets an email about one being found in America when he's supposed to be in Switzerland (and then he fails to answer his phone) she immediately assumes something is very wrong.
This is told mostly chronologically, but with memories scattered throughout. Laureth also gives slight hints as to what will be happening later on, reinstating the fact that she is writing about past events. I quite liked this - we were told about certain memories and events that were relevant to the story at that time, nothing more, nothing less.
It turns into quite a dark, suspenseful hunt. Laureth starts to fear that her father may even have taken his own life. The pair even get cornered by a man with a knife who claims to have seen her father. His partner later breaks into their hotel room, searching for some valuable contents of her father's safe. Coincidentally, they run in to her father just moments later.
The obsession of Laureth and Ben's father is coincidences; a very interesting topic. He goes into great detail in his notebook (which we are shown throughout the book), discussing theories and particular physicists' experiences. Bit by bit, he seems to be delving deeper and deeper into the mysteries of the universe. Laureth is caught up in this - she looks for clues in every page of her dad's notebook. But is she looking too hard? Is she finding signs that aren't really there?
Laureth relies on her brother to navigate the world, and although he is only going, he is superbly helpful to her. She is adamant on being an independent young lady, and even hides her impairment from most people she meets. As she is the narrator of this book, we are given an account that does not include any visual descriptions. Instead, the other senses are used far more - sounds and feelings especially. I really liked this.
The ending was wonderful. It was different - completely unexpected. I especially liked how her "coincidental" meeting with Sam turned out to mean nothing at all. And her father's account of what had happened, and his realisation that his obsession was pointless, was so ironic. Laureth and Ben had been on this massive journey, worried their father was so caught up in his obsession that his life was in danger. They began to find strange patterns and signs everywhere - only to find out how coindences are completely fake.
And the last page was so clever, too. It was numbered 354 which is clever in itself - this number holds a massive significance throughout this book - but then there's also the hidden message that's revealed. One of the last sentences prompts you to look closely at the book, and then you find a heartwarming little phrase. I really liked this idea - it seems a bit naff, but actually worked really well.
I did feel like this was maybe a little more for younger adults (I'm nearly 18) but it was really easy to follow and quick to read. It wasn't lengthy or tiresome at all. 4 stars.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Johnny English Strikes Again (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Spy spoof caper that’s only passably amusing.
It’s a HILARIOUS concept. It’s Bond but not as we know it: a suave, sophisticated, well-dressed hero but someone who’s a complete klutz when it comes to the spy business. Rowan Atkinson is perfect in the role: because when he plays his face ”straight” he IS strangely good-looking and certainly pulls off the air of confidence, intelligence and sophistication well.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
May 25, 2019 (Updated May 25, 2019)
" You are my World"
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ultimate Edition review
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was really unlucky. Not only did the movie hit the market during the heyday of the MCU, it also had to be cut for the cinema by 30 Minutes. Too bad, because this movie could not stand against the Marvelhype, let alone convince critics and viewers with the holey story of the theatrical version. After all, Warner bros has released an Ultimate Edition, in which you can see this movie in its true splendor. And the film in this cut is still one of the best superhero movies for me.
Let's start with the most obvious. The soundtrack of the movie is more than great. Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL have created an incredibly exciting, suitable and just really good soundtrack. You can listen to this at the beginning, during the Opening Credits sequence. If only briefly, but effectively, as the fate of the young Bruce Wayne is shown. This is already known from other Batman films, but it is especially important for this movie. But more on that later.
The rest of the Sountrack kicked ass consistently. Whether it's The Red Capes Are Coming, Is She With You or Beautiful Lie, everything is great!
Ben Affleck as Batman is perfect. His acting is really good, he convinces in every second, with every emotion. In addition, Henry Cavill here again shows what he can do as supes and it's awesome. Jeremy Irons as Alfred is great too, he plays Alfred really well and I liked him alot. Even Amy Adams, Gal Gadot, Holly Hunter and the usual suspects like Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne and Harry Lennix are great.
The action in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is also spectacular . Whether the great Batmobile chase, the battle of the giants or the final battle against Doomsday. In addition the action was clear and not too fast cut, so that one could follow and admire everything well!
Of course, the action was always supported by the successful effects. Everything looked great at all times. Doomsday may take some getting used to, but I found the effects good at all times!
I would also like to mention the humor, which is rather rare, but nevertheless effective and well placed.
I would also like to mention the introduction of Wonder Woman and the rest of the Justice League. I thought it was good and logical that Luthor has the information about the meta-beings and so Batman came to this, although he was actually looking for something else.
I also liked how the events in Man of Steel influenced this movie! But more on that later.
Incidentally, I think the already mentioned Opening Credits sequence is really good. At the same time showing the death of Bruce's parents and his meeting on the bats with Beautiful Lie in the background, I found a very successful and convincing start to this masterpiece!
Now I would like to come to the story, with which unfortunately most have problems. Because I find it consistently great!
Already at the beginning you can see how Bruce witnesses the death of his parents and how his dying father only says "Martha". This already shows directly that Batman is traumatized. This can also be seen by his dependence on alcohol and medication. With the appearance of Superman and the destruction of Metropolis that Bruce witnessed, he begins to despise Superman.
Lex Luthor, who through his many means knows who Batman and Superman are, tries to incite them against each other. But why? Because he was abused as a child by his father, now he's just crazy and wants to kill him because of his powerlessness over Superman. For in his world absolute power can not be innocent, and that power Superman has. And since Luthor knows he can not kill him, he wants Batman to do it.
And it is precisely this impotence that drives Bruce to despise Superman.
With the help of the attack, a few letters and the kidnapping of Martha Kent and Lois Lane, Lex then manages to fight day and night. Every move, every murder, everything was well thought out and planned. I think both Lex Luthor and his plan are well implemented here. In my eyes, without any logic holes, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, especially in the first half is a superhero drama in which the world wonders if it needs Superman at all and in which there is anger in Batman, Lex Luthor and so on Superman is dammed and unloaded in the explosive finale! All characters act absolutely sensible, natural and human.
I would like to go into the Martha scene.
How can anyone make fun of such a serious scene? Superman has to kill Batman to save Martha, his mother. But when he is defeated, he only wants to ask Batman to save his mother. In saying his name, Bruce unleashes his traumatic memory, the death of his parents, in which his father says his last word, "Martha." And when Lois says that Martha (Kent) is Superman's mother, Batman realizes that Superman also has a human side, and that he is even more human than himself. He also notices that his anger was meaningless. And to save Martha and stop Lex, they both come together. What is wrong with that? I think that's great!
All in all, in conclusion, I can only say again that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is an outstanding superhero action drama! Wonderfully written, performed and filmed.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was really unlucky. Not only did the movie hit the market during the heyday of the MCU, it also had to be cut for the cinema by 30 Minutes. Too bad, because this movie could not stand against the Marvelhype, let alone convince critics and viewers with the holey story of the theatrical version. After all, Warner bros has released an Ultimate Edition, in which you can see this movie in its true splendor. And the film in this cut is still one of the best superhero movies for me.
Let's start with the most obvious. The soundtrack of the movie is more than great. Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL have created an incredibly exciting, suitable and just really good soundtrack. You can listen to this at the beginning, during the Opening Credits sequence. If only briefly, but effectively, as the fate of the young Bruce Wayne is shown. This is already known from other Batman films, but it is especially important for this movie. But more on that later.
The rest of the Sountrack kicked ass consistently. Whether it's The Red Capes Are Coming, Is She With You or Beautiful Lie, everything is great!
Ben Affleck as Batman is perfect. His acting is really good, he convinces in every second, with every emotion. In addition, Henry Cavill here again shows what he can do as supes and it's awesome. Jeremy Irons as Alfred is great too, he plays Alfred really well and I liked him alot. Even Amy Adams, Gal Gadot, Holly Hunter and the usual suspects like Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne and Harry Lennix are great.
The action in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is also spectacular . Whether the great Batmobile chase, the battle of the giants or the final battle against Doomsday. In addition the action was clear and not too fast cut, so that one could follow and admire everything well!
Of course, the action was always supported by the successful effects. Everything looked great at all times. Doomsday may take some getting used to, but I found the effects good at all times!
I would also like to mention the humor, which is rather rare, but nevertheless effective and well placed.
I would also like to mention the introduction of Wonder Woman and the rest of the Justice League. I thought it was good and logical that Luthor has the information about the meta-beings and so Batman came to this, although he was actually looking for something else.
I also liked how the events in Man of Steel influenced this movie! But more on that later.
Incidentally, I think the already mentioned Opening Credits sequence is really good. At the same time showing the death of Bruce's parents and his meeting on the bats with Beautiful Lie in the background, I found a very successful and convincing start to this masterpiece!
Now I would like to come to the story, with which unfortunately most have problems. Because I find it consistently great!
Already at the beginning you can see how Bruce witnesses the death of his parents and how his dying father only says "Martha". This already shows directly that Batman is traumatized. This can also be seen by his dependence on alcohol and medication. With the appearance of Superman and the destruction of Metropolis that Bruce witnessed, he begins to despise Superman.
Lex Luthor, who through his many means knows who Batman and Superman are, tries to incite them against each other. But why? Because he was abused as a child by his father, now he's just crazy and wants to kill him because of his powerlessness over Superman. For in his world absolute power can not be innocent, and that power Superman has. And since Luthor knows he can not kill him, he wants Batman to do it.
And it is precisely this impotence that drives Bruce to despise Superman.
With the help of the attack, a few letters and the kidnapping of Martha Kent and Lois Lane, Lex then manages to fight day and night. Every move, every murder, everything was well thought out and planned. I think both Lex Luthor and his plan are well implemented here. In my eyes, without any logic holes, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, especially in the first half is a superhero drama in which the world wonders if it needs Superman at all and in which there is anger in Batman, Lex Luthor and so on Superman is dammed and unloaded in the explosive finale! All characters act absolutely sensible, natural and human.
I would like to go into the Martha scene.
How can anyone make fun of such a serious scene? Superman has to kill Batman to save Martha, his mother. But when he is defeated, he only wants to ask Batman to save his mother. In saying his name, Bruce unleashes his traumatic memory, the death of his parents, in which his father says his last word, "Martha." And when Lois says that Martha (Kent) is Superman's mother, Batman realizes that Superman also has a human side, and that he is even more human than himself. He also notices that his anger was meaningless. And to save Martha and stop Lex, they both come together. What is wrong with that? I think that's great!
All in all, in conclusion, I can only say again that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is an outstanding superhero action drama! Wonderfully written, performed and filmed.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hostage (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Chief of Police Jeff Talley (Bruce Willis) is a man filled with turmoil. A former S.W.A.T. officer and top hostage negotiator for the Los Angeles Police Department, Talley now toils away in a quite California town where crime is light and very infrequent. The change in locales was made necessary for Jeff in the aftermath of a hostage negotiation where things did not go accordingly leaving Jeff with more questions than answers.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Red Joan (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
There are some films that just stop me in my tracks, not because they're good or bad, but because they're so mediocre. I watched this two weeks ago and I've sat down to try and write this review about 8 times, each time I've ended up barely writing a sentence before giving up.
The film is split between present and past, this means that there's very little Dench despite what we're led to believe in the trailer. Old Joan doesn't get much of a chance to do anything other than be old, when she does get the chance to do something else it is effective but far too rare.
When the whole story relies so heavily on stories from the past I was surprised that they didn't use more of a storytelling idea. You don't see any of the evidence that they have in the modern case, we're just propelled back into Joan's memories. This made for a very easy leap from the interview room to the past. Joan was there telling her story so the fact they didn't use this opportunity to have her telling a story that spills over into the flashbacks as a voiceover seems like a rather large missed opportunity. It also might have helped form a bigger connection between the two versions of the main character and allowed us a better connection with her.
Dench was definitely not used to the best effect. I'd expect Joan in her old age to still have some of the pep from her youth about her, but there seemed to be few similarities between the two incarnations. I think I enjoyed Sophie Cookson as young Joan, but again, it wasn't something I was wowed about.
The whole production erred too much on the side of relationships rather than the espionage. I certainly think it could have stood up to having something a bit grittier in it. As it was it felt very much like a TV movie, and I possibly would have been more interested in it had it been a TV movie rather than a general release. Now I said that I feel it's completely mad that I have different expectations from the two areas for film releases.
Red Joan had very little that stood out for me, there were only two moments that shone. Tom Hughes as Leo giving his speech before meeting Joan, the reaction of the crowd to him was tremendous and overall the scene worked well. Then there's Ben Miles as Joan's son, Nick. He isn't bad in any of his scenes but right at the end of the film when he stands with his mother I was actually moved. The first of these scenes made me think there was hope for the film, the second sadly came too late to make a difference to the whole thing.
Everything about Red Joan was just okay in the end. When someone asked me about it my response was a shrug and the comment "it was a film". Coming from me that generally means the film will be forgotten very quickly.
I wish there was more to say about it. Ultimately I think I would have had more enjoyment out of researching the story this was loosely based on.
What you should do
This isn't one I'd recommend, the moments that are interesting and satisfying to watch do not outweigh the mediocre. Red Joan is something I would say is more interesting as non-fiction than fiction.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
One thing from the movie that I feel we should all take as a top life tip is that men are easily scared by sanitary products, a very handy thing to remember.
The film is split between present and past, this means that there's very little Dench despite what we're led to believe in the trailer. Old Joan doesn't get much of a chance to do anything other than be old, when she does get the chance to do something else it is effective but far too rare.
When the whole story relies so heavily on stories from the past I was surprised that they didn't use more of a storytelling idea. You don't see any of the evidence that they have in the modern case, we're just propelled back into Joan's memories. This made for a very easy leap from the interview room to the past. Joan was there telling her story so the fact they didn't use this opportunity to have her telling a story that spills over into the flashbacks as a voiceover seems like a rather large missed opportunity. It also might have helped form a bigger connection between the two versions of the main character and allowed us a better connection with her.
Dench was definitely not used to the best effect. I'd expect Joan in her old age to still have some of the pep from her youth about her, but there seemed to be few similarities between the two incarnations. I think I enjoyed Sophie Cookson as young Joan, but again, it wasn't something I was wowed about.
The whole production erred too much on the side of relationships rather than the espionage. I certainly think it could have stood up to having something a bit grittier in it. As it was it felt very much like a TV movie, and I possibly would have been more interested in it had it been a TV movie rather than a general release. Now I said that I feel it's completely mad that I have different expectations from the two areas for film releases.
Red Joan had very little that stood out for me, there were only two moments that shone. Tom Hughes as Leo giving his speech before meeting Joan, the reaction of the crowd to him was tremendous and overall the scene worked well. Then there's Ben Miles as Joan's son, Nick. He isn't bad in any of his scenes but right at the end of the film when he stands with his mother I was actually moved. The first of these scenes made me think there was hope for the film, the second sadly came too late to make a difference to the whole thing.
Everything about Red Joan was just okay in the end. When someone asked me about it my response was a shrug and the comment "it was a film". Coming from me that generally means the film will be forgotten very quickly.
I wish there was more to say about it. Ultimately I think I would have had more enjoyment out of researching the story this was loosely based on.
What you should do
This isn't one I'd recommend, the moments that are interesting and satisfying to watch do not outweigh the mediocre. Red Joan is something I would say is more interesting as non-fiction than fiction.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
One thing from the movie that I feel we should all take as a top life tip is that men are easily scared by sanitary products, a very handy thing to remember.