Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Under the Silver Lake (2018) in Movies
Jul 6, 2019
In David Robert Mitchell’s (It Follows) Under the Silver Lake, Andrew Garfield portrays a jobless and lethargic young man named Sam. Apart from his obsession with conspiracy theories and finding obscure messages in common pop culture, Sam typically spies on his topless and bird-loving neighbor. He also blatantly ignores the fact that he’s facing eviction in five days for unpaid rent. His current infatuation is a zine entitled Under the Silver Lake, which seems to mirror what’s currently transpiring in Los Angeles. Sam develops a crush on his new neighbor named Sarah (Riley Keough), who seems to disappear without a trace overnight. What begins as an investigation into Sarah’s current whereabouts evolves into something deeply rooted in the peculiar.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Okja (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
Okja (pronounced ok-cha, as far as I can discern from hearing it said) was a film I had on my radar from its release, but it took the impetus of Parasite and director Bong Joon Ho winning the Oscar to kick me into settling down to watch it. It is the kind of film I would have seen as a matter of course when I worked at the beloved Cameo Cinema, Edinburgh, back in the day… but the kind of film it takes me a while to get around to these days.
What I had heard was that it was quirky, had a very black humour and involved a giant pig. Other than that I was going in blind. Which is always preferable, with almost any film! Hype and too much information can ruin your experience of a thing, simply by putting preconceptions and ideas in your head that may influence your thinking and true reaction to something. I was very grateful then to avoid too much information regarding this unique movie.
The cast is full of people I like, outside of the Korean cast that were strangers to me, in all honesty. Jake Gyllenhaal and Paul Dano, especially, are two actors that have been high on my list of consistent performers you can trust for some years; both making interesting and compelling career choices in terms of subject matter and working with strong directors. Tilda Swinton too is usually good value for a promising watch, almost guaranteeing something slightly leftfield and worth thinking about.
Dano gets away with being the one likeable, if morally ambiguous, character out of the three; with Swinton and Gyllenhaal giving bizarre, heightened comic performances that it is hard to reference to anything else! As the main story of eco-consciousness and a girl’s love for her giant pig progresses in charming fashion, it is these starkly bonkers performances that stick out like very sore thumbs – sometimes raising awkward chuckles, but mostly making you go “what the hell is going on!?”
Well, what is going on is an exploration of corporate evil, the lies, deviousness and manipulation used to make a profit that ignores life and nature as anything worth preserving, or even loving. It wants us to look at meat eating for what it is, and imagines how we might think more about it as a species if we truly accept that animals have rights, personalities, even souls. Of course many people watching wouldn’t need to be converted to this way of thinking at all, so I am very curious (as a non vegetarian / vegan) what reaction a person whose consciousness of these things has been awake for years might have…?
It is possible to watch this without involving yourself too much in that whole debate, however. At its heart, it is a film about innocent love, and a rescue movie that sets unlikely heroes against a gargantuan nemesis against all odds. Naturally, it is a very smart script, that doesn’t ignore the notion of making fun of itself and keeping it mostly fun. In many ways, it seems like a family friendly film, apart from the underlying seriousness of the subject of cruelty, torture and, essentially, murder for the private gain of unscrupulous suits who would watch the world burn in the name of profit.
At the time of watching it, I caught myself in the right mood and really enjoyed it for what it was. Seo-Hyun Ahn as Mija is utterly lovely, and you do find yourself falling for Okja (rendered with marvelous CGI work) and sympathising with the warmth of their relationship as friends. The moments of the film that show nature and the calm of a non-modern world are the most compelling. The parts of the film with cities and noise and guns are more jarring – which, perhaps, is the point and fully intentional. Clearly, this is a director with serious vision and talent that was almost, if not quite, getting it right. As we now know, with Parasite he nailed it…
This is a film I’d be a little cautious of recommending to some people. It is just too odd in parts. It is a good film, not a great one. And perhaps more likely to impress in the hands of viewers that are already converted to the cause and way of thinking it champions.
What I had heard was that it was quirky, had a very black humour and involved a giant pig. Other than that I was going in blind. Which is always preferable, with almost any film! Hype and too much information can ruin your experience of a thing, simply by putting preconceptions and ideas in your head that may influence your thinking and true reaction to something. I was very grateful then to avoid too much information regarding this unique movie.
The cast is full of people I like, outside of the Korean cast that were strangers to me, in all honesty. Jake Gyllenhaal and Paul Dano, especially, are two actors that have been high on my list of consistent performers you can trust for some years; both making interesting and compelling career choices in terms of subject matter and working with strong directors. Tilda Swinton too is usually good value for a promising watch, almost guaranteeing something slightly leftfield and worth thinking about.
Dano gets away with being the one likeable, if morally ambiguous, character out of the three; with Swinton and Gyllenhaal giving bizarre, heightened comic performances that it is hard to reference to anything else! As the main story of eco-consciousness and a girl’s love for her giant pig progresses in charming fashion, it is these starkly bonkers performances that stick out like very sore thumbs – sometimes raising awkward chuckles, but mostly making you go “what the hell is going on!?”
Well, what is going on is an exploration of corporate evil, the lies, deviousness and manipulation used to make a profit that ignores life and nature as anything worth preserving, or even loving. It wants us to look at meat eating for what it is, and imagines how we might think more about it as a species if we truly accept that animals have rights, personalities, even souls. Of course many people watching wouldn’t need to be converted to this way of thinking at all, so I am very curious (as a non vegetarian / vegan) what reaction a person whose consciousness of these things has been awake for years might have…?
It is possible to watch this without involving yourself too much in that whole debate, however. At its heart, it is a film about innocent love, and a rescue movie that sets unlikely heroes against a gargantuan nemesis against all odds. Naturally, it is a very smart script, that doesn’t ignore the notion of making fun of itself and keeping it mostly fun. In many ways, it seems like a family friendly film, apart from the underlying seriousness of the subject of cruelty, torture and, essentially, murder for the private gain of unscrupulous suits who would watch the world burn in the name of profit.
At the time of watching it, I caught myself in the right mood and really enjoyed it for what it was. Seo-Hyun Ahn as Mija is utterly lovely, and you do find yourself falling for Okja (rendered with marvelous CGI work) and sympathising with the warmth of their relationship as friends. The moments of the film that show nature and the calm of a non-modern world are the most compelling. The parts of the film with cities and noise and guns are more jarring – which, perhaps, is the point and fully intentional. Clearly, this is a director with serious vision and talent that was almost, if not quite, getting it right. As we now know, with Parasite he nailed it…
This is a film I’d be a little cautious of recommending to some people. It is just too odd in parts. It is a good film, not a great one. And perhaps more likely to impress in the hands of viewers that are already converted to the cause and way of thinking it champions.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated By The Sea (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have yet another film that strays from ‘the norm’. A film that not only stars one of the most beloved celebrity couples on the planet but also harkens back to the Italian dramatic films of the late 1960s/early 70s. It most definitely qualifies as an ‘art house’ film.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Henry Rollins recommended Apocalypse Now (1979) in Movies (curated)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Death to 2020 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
The annual event of Charlie Brooker’s Yearly Wipe is the one piece of satire I have been sure not to miss over the years. But 2020 has been a bit different, and finding himself in lockdown like everyone else, Brooker re-imagines the format into a full on talking-heads mockumentary that does away with himself as host in favour of a cross Atlantic vibe and a narration from the bass tones of Laurence Fishburne, no less.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Guns Akimbo (2019) in Movies
May 20, 2020
When I first heard about Guns Akimbo I was very interested in seeing it, when I next heard about it... well, it wasn't exactly a happy internet moment. Despite the actions of one person though you shouldn't write off something that so many people worked on, that meant I was still keen.
Miles likes to think of himself as a bit of an online warrior, really he's just trolling the trolls... and he's just annoyed the wrong people. Skizm are making a name for themselves in real-life gaming experiences, you can watch online as people battle to the death, and Miles' transgression means he's their next competitor.
The idea isn't a new one, there's Gamer and Nerve (I haven't seen the latter but it was mentioned to me), I personally get a few vibes from The Condemned too, but despite all of that it still feels like it has a fun twist to it.
Miles is a "mild mannered" nerd who gets thrown into the violent world of Skizm, well outside his comfort zone he's now tasked with killing their current champion before she kills him. There's shouldn't really be much of a contest because even with guns surgically attached to his hands he's still only a mild threat to Nix. In the real world an ill-matched pairing probably wouldn't work but with the extra story and some added movie magic in the form of dumb luck for Miles and it means we get an underdog battle that everyone enjoys.
The contest runs rampant through the streets and we mainly follow Miles on his journey with the occasional jump to fill in story. It sticks well to video game imagery and principles, I particularly liked the addition of health/1-up sound effects. Overall the filming of it is well presented and engaging with combat scenes changing pace for dramatic effect and cutting between angles to give you something to react to. There are a lot of Dutch angles used, which makes sense considering how much concussion and drugs are flying around. My only quibble with this would probably be that there seems to be every possible camera technique and angle used in the film, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but at times it feels a bit much.
Daniel Radcliffe is in the main role of Miles, and this is more of a personal drawback for me because I'm never entirely convinced he can act... but he is very amusing in this. In the beginning his inner nerd is on point when faced with Nix for the first time and the pair have a good, if slightly bizarre, rapport. I can deal with the fact that Miles has a lot of dumb luck, but at one point in the film he suddenly develops skills out of nowhere and that one annoyed me even though it made for a great scene.
As I said, the chemistry between Miles and Nix is very entertaining and Samara Weaving is a solid choice in casting. Nix is the baddie that you can't really hate and with her dark humour and the back story they weave in she's probably my favourite character. There were two things that leapt out at me, the Ready Or Note laugh and the Harley Quinn/Birds Of Prey drug snorting... now, BoP and Guns Akimbo must have been filmed at similar times so I can't see how it could have been copied but there's a moment that makes me instantly think of BoP, and with Weaving always momentarily confusing my brain when I see her it threw me for a loop.
There's a really well chosen group of songs throughout and they fit well with the tone of the film and the levels of energy needed... but as with everything in this review there's a little thing to pick at, and again, it's only tiny but it bugged me. One of the songs is used twice... technically nothing wrong with that, but I noticed it and it mildly annoyed me.
We've got two great leads who work well together and lots of hidden pop culture references that really help the film along. There's potential for the ultra violent moments to become a bit too much but with the effects, humour and editing I think it stops it from becoming anything too graphic. Guns Akimbo was pretty entertaining throughout and it's definitely one I can see myself rewatching.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/guns-akimbo-movie-review.html
Miles likes to think of himself as a bit of an online warrior, really he's just trolling the trolls... and he's just annoyed the wrong people. Skizm are making a name for themselves in real-life gaming experiences, you can watch online as people battle to the death, and Miles' transgression means he's their next competitor.
The idea isn't a new one, there's Gamer and Nerve (I haven't seen the latter but it was mentioned to me), I personally get a few vibes from The Condemned too, but despite all of that it still feels like it has a fun twist to it.
Miles is a "mild mannered" nerd who gets thrown into the violent world of Skizm, well outside his comfort zone he's now tasked with killing their current champion before she kills him. There's shouldn't really be much of a contest because even with guns surgically attached to his hands he's still only a mild threat to Nix. In the real world an ill-matched pairing probably wouldn't work but with the extra story and some added movie magic in the form of dumb luck for Miles and it means we get an underdog battle that everyone enjoys.
The contest runs rampant through the streets and we mainly follow Miles on his journey with the occasional jump to fill in story. It sticks well to video game imagery and principles, I particularly liked the addition of health/1-up sound effects. Overall the filming of it is well presented and engaging with combat scenes changing pace for dramatic effect and cutting between angles to give you something to react to. There are a lot of Dutch angles used, which makes sense considering how much concussion and drugs are flying around. My only quibble with this would probably be that there seems to be every possible camera technique and angle used in the film, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but at times it feels a bit much.
Daniel Radcliffe is in the main role of Miles, and this is more of a personal drawback for me because I'm never entirely convinced he can act... but he is very amusing in this. In the beginning his inner nerd is on point when faced with Nix for the first time and the pair have a good, if slightly bizarre, rapport. I can deal with the fact that Miles has a lot of dumb luck, but at one point in the film he suddenly develops skills out of nowhere and that one annoyed me even though it made for a great scene.
As I said, the chemistry between Miles and Nix is very entertaining and Samara Weaving is a solid choice in casting. Nix is the baddie that you can't really hate and with her dark humour and the back story they weave in she's probably my favourite character. There were two things that leapt out at me, the Ready Or Note laugh and the Harley Quinn/Birds Of Prey drug snorting... now, BoP and Guns Akimbo must have been filmed at similar times so I can't see how it could have been copied but there's a moment that makes me instantly think of BoP, and with Weaving always momentarily confusing my brain when I see her it threw me for a loop.
There's a really well chosen group of songs throughout and they fit well with the tone of the film and the levels of energy needed... but as with everything in this review there's a little thing to pick at, and again, it's only tiny but it bugged me. One of the songs is used twice... technically nothing wrong with that, but I noticed it and it mildly annoyed me.
We've got two great leads who work well together and lots of hidden pop culture references that really help the film along. There's potential for the ultra violent moments to become a bit too much but with the effects, humour and editing I think it stops it from becoming anything too graphic. Guns Akimbo was pretty entertaining throughout and it's definitely one I can see myself rewatching.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/guns-akimbo-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild (2022) in Movies
Jan 30, 2022
The mimicking raptor (1 more)
The, "power of our spleens," line of dialogue.
Horrendously ugly animation. (2 more)
A terribly boring screenplay.
Humor that is so painfully unfunny.
The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild is the first Disney produced film of the franchise and the first Ice Age film to go directly to streaming. None of the original cast members return other than Simon Pegg as Buck Wild. Scrat is nowhere to be found and the animation is a noticeable downgrade. This project began with the intention of being a new Ice Age TV series, but was then repurposed into an 81-minute feature-length film.
Crash and Eddie (now voiced by Vincent Tong and Aaron Harris) have gotten the itch to branch out on their own. Being a part of the herd with Manny, Diego, Sid, and Ellie has finally reached a boiling point. After ruining a summer getaway with an ice-alanche, Manny encourages Crash and Eddie to go off on their own adventure. He never thought the death portraying duo would take his words to heart.
The possums venture back deep below the ice and back to The Lost World where they are reunited with Buck Wild (Pegg). However, their reunion is bittersweet as a big-headed and big-brained Protoceratops named Orson (Utkarsh Ambudkar, Free Guy) has just returned from exile where he intends to use his raptor henchmen to rule over every living mammal.
This new Ice Age film is animated by Canadian animation company Bardel Entertainment. Other CGI related works Bardel has had a hand in producing include Angry Birds Blues, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012), All Hail King Julien, The Adventures of Puss in Boots, and the Monsters vs. Aliens TV series. The animation in Adventures of Buck Wild is incredibly ugly. Scenery and background characters are minimally detailed and look like poorly colored blobs with a limited color palette.
The film has a very direct-to-video ambiance to it. It’s kind of like watching Reboot or Beast Wars: Transformers today, but what those series lack in animation they make up for with exceptional writing. The Adventures of Buck Wild mostly feels like Disney’s quick attempt at a cash grab after dissolving Blue Sky Studios in 2021. The animation is a bit better when it comes to close-ups of characters as strands of hair have more detail. It still doesn’t help the horrendous character design. Orson is basically the dinosaur version of Yosemite Sam while his raptors look like Wheelie from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
Directed by John C. Donkin (producer of the first three Ice Age films, Rio and Rio 2, and Robots) and written by Ray DeLaurentis (Fairly Oddparents), Jim Hecht (Ice Age: The Meltdown), and William Schifrin (Quest for Camelot), Adventures of Buck Wild has stale writing that has a few noteworthy moments. Most of the attempts at humor are met with eyerolling, severe facepalms, or shaking your head with disgust. The raptor that copies everything Orson does may be the best comedic relief the films has and the, “Power of spleens,” bit is easily the best line of dialogue.
Buck Wild is a seriously bizarre character though. He formed his own team and inadvertently destroyed it since he last met Crash and Eddie. Being alone has obviously taken its toll on him. He now talks to his left hand in a silly voice and has a pumpkin daughter that is babysat by a cucumber. Zee, a former team member and ex-best friend of Buck, is a zorilla/striped polecat. She looks like a raccoon, but is super agile and can spray like a skunk. Her and Buck are incredibly similar other than the fact that Buck likes to rush into battle without any sort of preparation whereas Zee likes to train and plan before facing an enemy.
It would have been so incredibly satisfying if Disney had debuted an Ice Age film with solid animation, laugh out loud humor, a well-written story, and likeable or even downright despicable characters. Having those elements would have at least given fans of the franchise thus far that Disney had a vision of where to take Ice Age in the foreseeable future. Instead we get this lackluster dud of a film that is boring to look at and is mostly massively unfunny while making most of the characters – old and new – forgettable. When Zee first meets Crash and Eddie, Buck says something along the lines of, “What they lack in courage they make up for with bumbling ineptitude.” That is all The Adventures of Buck Wild is; an unnecessary animated excursion into bumbling ineptitude.
Crash and Eddie (now voiced by Vincent Tong and Aaron Harris) have gotten the itch to branch out on their own. Being a part of the herd with Manny, Diego, Sid, and Ellie has finally reached a boiling point. After ruining a summer getaway with an ice-alanche, Manny encourages Crash and Eddie to go off on their own adventure. He never thought the death portraying duo would take his words to heart.
The possums venture back deep below the ice and back to The Lost World where they are reunited with Buck Wild (Pegg). However, their reunion is bittersweet as a big-headed and big-brained Protoceratops named Orson (Utkarsh Ambudkar, Free Guy) has just returned from exile where he intends to use his raptor henchmen to rule over every living mammal.
This new Ice Age film is animated by Canadian animation company Bardel Entertainment. Other CGI related works Bardel has had a hand in producing include Angry Birds Blues, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012), All Hail King Julien, The Adventures of Puss in Boots, and the Monsters vs. Aliens TV series. The animation in Adventures of Buck Wild is incredibly ugly. Scenery and background characters are minimally detailed and look like poorly colored blobs with a limited color palette.
The film has a very direct-to-video ambiance to it. It’s kind of like watching Reboot or Beast Wars: Transformers today, but what those series lack in animation they make up for with exceptional writing. The Adventures of Buck Wild mostly feels like Disney’s quick attempt at a cash grab after dissolving Blue Sky Studios in 2021. The animation is a bit better when it comes to close-ups of characters as strands of hair have more detail. It still doesn’t help the horrendous character design. Orson is basically the dinosaur version of Yosemite Sam while his raptors look like Wheelie from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
Directed by John C. Donkin (producer of the first three Ice Age films, Rio and Rio 2, and Robots) and written by Ray DeLaurentis (Fairly Oddparents), Jim Hecht (Ice Age: The Meltdown), and William Schifrin (Quest for Camelot), Adventures of Buck Wild has stale writing that has a few noteworthy moments. Most of the attempts at humor are met with eyerolling, severe facepalms, or shaking your head with disgust. The raptor that copies everything Orson does may be the best comedic relief the films has and the, “Power of spleens,” bit is easily the best line of dialogue.
Buck Wild is a seriously bizarre character though. He formed his own team and inadvertently destroyed it since he last met Crash and Eddie. Being alone has obviously taken its toll on him. He now talks to his left hand in a silly voice and has a pumpkin daughter that is babysat by a cucumber. Zee, a former team member and ex-best friend of Buck, is a zorilla/striped polecat. She looks like a raccoon, but is super agile and can spray like a skunk. Her and Buck are incredibly similar other than the fact that Buck likes to rush into battle without any sort of preparation whereas Zee likes to train and plan before facing an enemy.
It would have been so incredibly satisfying if Disney had debuted an Ice Age film with solid animation, laugh out loud humor, a well-written story, and likeable or even downright despicable characters. Having those elements would have at least given fans of the franchise thus far that Disney had a vision of where to take Ice Age in the foreseeable future. Instead we get this lackluster dud of a film that is boring to look at and is mostly massively unfunny while making most of the characters – old and new – forgettable. When Zee first meets Crash and Eddie, Buck says something along the lines of, “What they lack in courage they make up for with bumbling ineptitude.” That is all The Adventures of Buck Wild is; an unnecessary animated excursion into bumbling ineptitude.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Jurassic Shark
Ah the shark attack movie. A genre that has over the years changed itself from impactful horror suspense thriller to cheesy, throwaway popcorn entertainment. Apart from when Steven Spielberg changed cinema forever with his 1975 masterpiece, Jaws, audiences have been given few treats in the decades that followed.
Deep Blue Sea was a tasteful homage to its forbearer, but even that was riddled in cliché and was much more of a brain-numbing creature feature than Jaws was. And then came Sharknado and its raft of dreadfully titled sequels. Look back through cinema history and you’ll see that sharks are big business in Hollywood.
Now, as we enter the final stages of 2018, Jason Statham stars in perhaps the most preposterous shark movie yet, yes, even more preposterous than Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! But sometimes preposterous can be fun. Is that the case here?
A massive creature attacks a deep-sea submersible, leaving it disabled and trapping the crew at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. With time running out, rescue diver Jonas Taylor (Statham) must save the crew and the ocean itself from an unimaginable threat – a 75-foot-long prehistoric shark known as the Megalodon.
Jon Turteltaub, who directed delicacies like National Treasure and Cool Runnings takes to The Meg like, well a duck to water. It’s filled with tantalising action sequences and Jason Statham spouting marine biology jargon including a scene in which the Hollywood star is shirtless whilst spouting marine biology jargon. What more could you want?
Quite a bit as it happens. Despite a solid opening act that sets up the dark humour of the film nicely, The Meg is a bit of a bore. Populated by bland characters, uninspiring CGI and plot holes so big they’d make the Marianas trench blush. It’s all a bit of a mess to be honest.
The Meg is one of a new breed of Hollywood blockbusters that has been made to pander to the new Chinese audience and while this has worked well for other high-budget movies like Pacific Rim, it doesn’t work quite as well here. Li Bingbing stars as marine biologist Suyin Zhang and whilst she performs well in her native tongue, her English-spoken scenes are stilted and lack any depth of emotion whatsoever.
In fact, outside of Statham, the rest of the cast are complete non-entities. Rainn Wilson provides some comic relief as a financial investor, but it’s all very B-movie and clearly not in the way it was intended. You see, when you know you have a ridiculous premise, the best thing to do is run with it and create the most insanely bizarre film in existence. Unfortunately, The Meg takes itself far too seriously and this makes it feel much longer than its running time would suggest. They could’ve gotten away with calling it ‘Jason Statham Shark Movie’ as that’ pretty much the premise in a nutshell.
It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib
At a cost just shy of $200million, you’d expect to have Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom levels of special effects. They actually cost around the same to produce. In truth, The Meg can’t hold a candle to its land-based prehistoric cousin. The CGI is passable at best and really dreadful at worst and this is a real shame. When the main selling point of your film is a 75-foot shark, you really need to get it spot on.
Besides a couple of cool shots, one of which is the featured image for this particular review (see the image at the top of the header banner), the cinematography is absolutely uninspired.
When you have a film that features so much ocean, there are a multitude of amazing things you could achieve with the shot choices. Unfortunately, none of them have been realised here.
Elsewhere, there is something a little more sinister afoot. Sharks already get a seriously bad reputation and this film does nothing to quash that. With many species now unfortunately endangered, films like The Meg could do more harm than good. It portrays all sharks as merciless killers – proficient and deadly. If it did want to be a serious shark attack flick, it should have relied less on goofy comedy and more on raising awareness for the creatures.
We’ve now had three ‘creature feature’ films thus far into 2018. Starting with Rampage earlier in the year, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom in June and now The Meg, and whilst each of them brings something unique to the table, The Meg sinks to the bottom of the seafloor. It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib. The Meg is a shark movie without any bite.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/08/11/the-meg-review-jurassic-shark/
Deep Blue Sea was a tasteful homage to its forbearer, but even that was riddled in cliché and was much more of a brain-numbing creature feature than Jaws was. And then came Sharknado and its raft of dreadfully titled sequels. Look back through cinema history and you’ll see that sharks are big business in Hollywood.
Now, as we enter the final stages of 2018, Jason Statham stars in perhaps the most preposterous shark movie yet, yes, even more preposterous than Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! But sometimes preposterous can be fun. Is that the case here?
A massive creature attacks a deep-sea submersible, leaving it disabled and trapping the crew at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. With time running out, rescue diver Jonas Taylor (Statham) must save the crew and the ocean itself from an unimaginable threat – a 75-foot-long prehistoric shark known as the Megalodon.
Jon Turteltaub, who directed delicacies like National Treasure and Cool Runnings takes to The Meg like, well a duck to water. It’s filled with tantalising action sequences and Jason Statham spouting marine biology jargon including a scene in which the Hollywood star is shirtless whilst spouting marine biology jargon. What more could you want?
Quite a bit as it happens. Despite a solid opening act that sets up the dark humour of the film nicely, The Meg is a bit of a bore. Populated by bland characters, uninspiring CGI and plot holes so big they’d make the Marianas trench blush. It’s all a bit of a mess to be honest.
The Meg is one of a new breed of Hollywood blockbusters that has been made to pander to the new Chinese audience and while this has worked well for other high-budget movies like Pacific Rim, it doesn’t work quite as well here. Li Bingbing stars as marine biologist Suyin Zhang and whilst she performs well in her native tongue, her English-spoken scenes are stilted and lack any depth of emotion whatsoever.
In fact, outside of Statham, the rest of the cast are complete non-entities. Rainn Wilson provides some comic relief as a financial investor, but it’s all very B-movie and clearly not in the way it was intended. You see, when you know you have a ridiculous premise, the best thing to do is run with it and create the most insanely bizarre film in existence. Unfortunately, The Meg takes itself far too seriously and this makes it feel much longer than its running time would suggest. They could’ve gotten away with calling it ‘Jason Statham Shark Movie’ as that’ pretty much the premise in a nutshell.
It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib
At a cost just shy of $200million, you’d expect to have Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom levels of special effects. They actually cost around the same to produce. In truth, The Meg can’t hold a candle to its land-based prehistoric cousin. The CGI is passable at best and really dreadful at worst and this is a real shame. When the main selling point of your film is a 75-foot shark, you really need to get it spot on.
Besides a couple of cool shots, one of which is the featured image for this particular review (see the image at the top of the header banner), the cinematography is absolutely uninspired.
When you have a film that features so much ocean, there are a multitude of amazing things you could achieve with the shot choices. Unfortunately, none of them have been realised here.
Elsewhere, there is something a little more sinister afoot. Sharks already get a seriously bad reputation and this film does nothing to quash that. With many species now unfortunately endangered, films like The Meg could do more harm than good. It portrays all sharks as merciless killers – proficient and deadly. If it did want to be a serious shark attack flick, it should have relied less on goofy comedy and more on raising awareness for the creatures.
We’ve now had three ‘creature feature’ films thus far into 2018. Starting with Rampage earlier in the year, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom in June and now The Meg, and whilst each of them brings something unique to the table, The Meg sinks to the bottom of the seafloor. It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib. The Meg is a shark movie without any bite.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/08/11/the-meg-review-jurassic-shark/
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Making films from books has always been a tricky proposition. For every film adaptation that hits it big such as Jaws, Lord of the Rings and The Silence of the Lambs, there are several that fail to work or are downright disasters such as The Bonfire of the Vanities.
In the film The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the late Douglas Adams first book in his classic series has finally arrived on the big screen after many delays getting started and a successful version on PBS.
The film stars Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent, a simple, easy going fellow whose entire goal in life is to stop the demolition of his beloved home from those who want to put a new highway in its current location.
As Arthur attempts to block the demolition, his good friend Ford Prefect (Mos Def), arrives and stalls the demolition with free beer for the work crew. Thinking he has been saved, Arthur is puzzled when Ford takes him to a local pub and buys rounds for the entire pub, saying the world is ending in a few minutes.
Ford in reality is an alien visiting the Earth and learns that the Earth is about to be destroyed to make way for a new galactic expressway. Before he knows what has happened, Arthur is whisked away seconds before the destruction of the Earth by Ford as they end up on a ship of the demolition fleet.
After a series of bizarre events and a narrow escape, Ford and Arthur end up on a passing ship that has been stolen by galactic president Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell), and Trillian (Zooey Deschanel), who just happens to be the lady of Arthur’s dreams and who is also unaware that the Earth has been destroyed in the short amount of time since she left Earth to explore with Zaphod.
As if this was not enough, the ship also has a depressed android named Marvin (Warwick Davis and voiced by Allan Rickman).
It is at this point that the film goes horribly wrong as the amusing and interesting setup quickly goes nowhere. While the crew is sent on a series of quests, each becomes less interesting than the one before it, and the very bland production values of the film are exposed. The sets are very basic and look as if they were borrowed from many of the budget driven British Sci-Fi that frequents PBS. Somehow the idea of an alien room being nothing but a rusty wall and a slapped up sign just does not cut it for me. At times I thought I was watching a home video production done by fans or another late night B movie rather than a major studio summer release.
As bad as the sets were what is even more amazing was the at times laughable attempts at visual effects where it was obvious that the actors were standing in front of screens as the matting lines were visible.
I tried to put a lot of this off to the idea that the film was trying to be quirky in keeping with the book, but quirky is not an excuse for underwhelming effects, basic sets, and lousy costuming and make up effects as I half expected to see zippers on the costumes of many aliens that looked like they were cobbled from parts at a hardware store.
So now that I have covered my issues with the look of the film, let’s look at the story itself. In a word: boring. I could not believe how dull and lazy the film became, and how the staff seemed to be going through the motions. The cast has zero chemistry and Rockwell is so frantic that his character is annoying to watch. After five minutes of his rock star in the spotlight style shtick, I wanted to strangle the character or at least get him on some serious medication.
Director Garth Jennings also has many scenes that simply go nowhere or drag on only to cut at odd times resulting in a complete and utter lack of pacing.
I am a big fan of the book series and I had very high hopes for this film. Sadly the disaster that resulted may very well have Douglas Adams spinning in his grave as his classic work was destroyed. I have to wonder how much of his original draft for the script that was used as the basis for the film survived.
While extreme die hard fans may enjoy the film, even they are likely to be disappointed and I can only hope that if they try to make the next book in the series, “The Restaurant at the End of the Universe”, they do a much better job then this effort, as this is one awful film adaptation.
In the film The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the late Douglas Adams first book in his classic series has finally arrived on the big screen after many delays getting started and a successful version on PBS.
The film stars Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent, a simple, easy going fellow whose entire goal in life is to stop the demolition of his beloved home from those who want to put a new highway in its current location.
As Arthur attempts to block the demolition, his good friend Ford Prefect (Mos Def), arrives and stalls the demolition with free beer for the work crew. Thinking he has been saved, Arthur is puzzled when Ford takes him to a local pub and buys rounds for the entire pub, saying the world is ending in a few minutes.
Ford in reality is an alien visiting the Earth and learns that the Earth is about to be destroyed to make way for a new galactic expressway. Before he knows what has happened, Arthur is whisked away seconds before the destruction of the Earth by Ford as they end up on a ship of the demolition fleet.
After a series of bizarre events and a narrow escape, Ford and Arthur end up on a passing ship that has been stolen by galactic president Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell), and Trillian (Zooey Deschanel), who just happens to be the lady of Arthur’s dreams and who is also unaware that the Earth has been destroyed in the short amount of time since she left Earth to explore with Zaphod.
As if this was not enough, the ship also has a depressed android named Marvin (Warwick Davis and voiced by Allan Rickman).
It is at this point that the film goes horribly wrong as the amusing and interesting setup quickly goes nowhere. While the crew is sent on a series of quests, each becomes less interesting than the one before it, and the very bland production values of the film are exposed. The sets are very basic and look as if they were borrowed from many of the budget driven British Sci-Fi that frequents PBS. Somehow the idea of an alien room being nothing but a rusty wall and a slapped up sign just does not cut it for me. At times I thought I was watching a home video production done by fans or another late night B movie rather than a major studio summer release.
As bad as the sets were what is even more amazing was the at times laughable attempts at visual effects where it was obvious that the actors were standing in front of screens as the matting lines were visible.
I tried to put a lot of this off to the idea that the film was trying to be quirky in keeping with the book, but quirky is not an excuse for underwhelming effects, basic sets, and lousy costuming and make up effects as I half expected to see zippers on the costumes of many aliens that looked like they were cobbled from parts at a hardware store.
So now that I have covered my issues with the look of the film, let’s look at the story itself. In a word: boring. I could not believe how dull and lazy the film became, and how the staff seemed to be going through the motions. The cast has zero chemistry and Rockwell is so frantic that his character is annoying to watch. After five minutes of his rock star in the spotlight style shtick, I wanted to strangle the character or at least get him on some serious medication.
Director Garth Jennings also has many scenes that simply go nowhere or drag on only to cut at odd times resulting in a complete and utter lack of pacing.
I am a big fan of the book series and I had very high hopes for this film. Sadly the disaster that resulted may very well have Douglas Adams spinning in his grave as his classic work was destroyed. I have to wonder how much of his original draft for the script that was used as the basis for the film survived.
While extreme die hard fans may enjoy the film, even they are likely to be disappointed and I can only hope that if they try to make the next book in the series, “The Restaurant at the End of the Universe”, they do a much better job then this effort, as this is one awful film adaptation.