Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated La La Land (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“It’s very nostalgic – will people like it?”
A little film. Not sure whether you might have heard of it yet? Damien Chazelle has followed up his astonishingly proficient “Whiplash” – my top film of 2015 – with a sure-fire theatre-filler in “La La Land”. The old-fashioned musical extravaganza is back, and back with style!
“La La Land” tells the bittersweet love story of Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) who first meet in an LA traffic jam but then get thrown together by chance (LA is such a small place after all!). Over the course of the next four seasons romance blossoms. Mia is a struggling actress bouncing from audition to audition in a hopeless attempt to break through in LA’s tough movie business. She makes ends meet as a Barista on the Warner Brother’s lot. Meanwhile Sebastian is on a mission of his own: a talented musician, he is trying to restore jazz to the main stage (something the film’s soundtrack will undoubtedly help do!) by opening his own classic jazz bar. As both strive for success on their own terms can love survive to deliver us the classic ‘Hollywood ending’?
The film is technically astonishing, with clever continuous shots of the “Birdman” variety and masterly cinematography (by Linus Sandgren of “Joy” and “American Hustle”). The lighting team in particular is superb: a case in point is Mia’s ‘in-Seine’ (sic) song, with breathtaking fades of the background to darkness, a camera whizz-around the actress for effect and then a brilliant fade back to reality. Loved it. Overall, there are enough similar moments in the film to make cinema-lovers like me gasp with delight.
There’s a curious timelessness about the piece which is surely deliberate. While there are obvious and non-apologetic throwbacks to the classic musicals of the 50’s like “West Side Story” and “Singin’ in the Rain” and references to both “Casablanca” and “Rebel without a Cause”, there is also a 60’s vibe to the ‘girls getting ready’ sequence; an 80’s A-ha cover thrown in at a pool party; and a Californian Prius obsession that is surely more ‘noughties’ than current. Most curiously, while everyone has smartphones noone seems to text anyone to announce changes to plans: the film is almost distancing itself from much of modern life.
In the acting stakes Emma Stone again shines like a beacon. She is just magnetic on the screen: the biggest plot hole in the film (tiny spoiler) is why on earth she wasn’t given the part for her first audition! I was disappointed she didn’t win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for “Birdman” in the “87th Awards” (she lost out to Patricia Arquette for “Boyhood”): but she just keeps getting better and Better and BETTER.
Ryan Gosling’s confident and cocky turn also radiates charisma: in particular, it is astonishing that Gosling could play “only a few chords” on the piano before training for the film. A confidence boost for struggling piano learners everywhere.
It is actually difficult to imagine two better actors for the roles. (Emma Watson allegedly turned it down for “Beauty and the Beast”: something she might be kicking herself for!) Are they both the best singers and dancers when compared to Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Debbie Reynolds (R.I.P.) or Cyd Charisse? No, undoubtedly not, but they have an undeniable charm all of their own. (Perhaps we will see the ilk of the great hoofers and crooners rise again with a resurgence in the classic musical. Can Hollywood take a hint?)
The big question: now that both Stone and Gosling have won Golden Globes for acting in the “Comedy or Musical” category, can they convert that to Oscar glory where there is a single category in play? I’d like to think so.
It’s also great to see proper movie-making taking place in the Hollywood studios again: during my recent visits to LA there seemed to be little other than TV work going on in the main studio complexes there (although its worth pointing out that for this film not all of the filming was actually done on the Warner Brothers lot). (As an aside, the Warner Brothers tour – which you need to book well in advance – is a GREAT day out for movie lovers, with a Sunday visit giving you the best access to live sets. #insideknowledgetrivia: that small grassy triangle with the gravestones on it is where they filmed many of the “Friends” outdoor scenes such as the baseball match!).
Musicals are clearly measured by the quality of the music, and Justin Hurwitz (“Whiplash”) has produced a gem with – notwithstanding the jazz numbers and a catchy little pop number from John Legend – merely a handful of simple but unforgettable melodies that recur in different variations throughout the film. The soundtrack is already in my Amazon library and uplifting my mood on what is a damp and dreary Monday here in the UK.
Damien Chazelle has delivered a triumph in both direction and original script. There is really very little I can fault the film on. In what was the somewhat patchy Coen brothers offering from last year – “Hail Caesar” – there was a standout moment of a throwback song and dance number with Channing Tatum that I raved about (you can catch it here). If I was being picky, then this tantalising snippet would be a better representation of the style and vim of the original genre – – with the exception of the opening number, few of the song and dance numbers in “La La Land” quite get to that “Broadway Melody” level of scale and energy. This, together with a few concerns about the pacing in some places, led me to rate this as a 4.5 on first viewing.
However on now seeing it twice within 36 hours, it’s got me well and truly under its spell! I normally emotionally resist films that arrive with excessive hype… but, in this case… I give in.
“La La Land” tells the bittersweet love story of Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) who first meet in an LA traffic jam but then get thrown together by chance (LA is such a small place after all!). Over the course of the next four seasons romance blossoms. Mia is a struggling actress bouncing from audition to audition in a hopeless attempt to break through in LA’s tough movie business. She makes ends meet as a Barista on the Warner Brother’s lot. Meanwhile Sebastian is on a mission of his own: a talented musician, he is trying to restore jazz to the main stage (something the film’s soundtrack will undoubtedly help do!) by opening his own classic jazz bar. As both strive for success on their own terms can love survive to deliver us the classic ‘Hollywood ending’?
The film is technically astonishing, with clever continuous shots of the “Birdman” variety and masterly cinematography (by Linus Sandgren of “Joy” and “American Hustle”). The lighting team in particular is superb: a case in point is Mia’s ‘in-Seine’ (sic) song, with breathtaking fades of the background to darkness, a camera whizz-around the actress for effect and then a brilliant fade back to reality. Loved it. Overall, there are enough similar moments in the film to make cinema-lovers like me gasp with delight.
There’s a curious timelessness about the piece which is surely deliberate. While there are obvious and non-apologetic throwbacks to the classic musicals of the 50’s like “West Side Story” and “Singin’ in the Rain” and references to both “Casablanca” and “Rebel without a Cause”, there is also a 60’s vibe to the ‘girls getting ready’ sequence; an 80’s A-ha cover thrown in at a pool party; and a Californian Prius obsession that is surely more ‘noughties’ than current. Most curiously, while everyone has smartphones noone seems to text anyone to announce changes to plans: the film is almost distancing itself from much of modern life.
In the acting stakes Emma Stone again shines like a beacon. She is just magnetic on the screen: the biggest plot hole in the film (tiny spoiler) is why on earth she wasn’t given the part for her first audition! I was disappointed she didn’t win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for “Birdman” in the “87th Awards” (she lost out to Patricia Arquette for “Boyhood”): but she just keeps getting better and Better and BETTER.
Ryan Gosling’s confident and cocky turn also radiates charisma: in particular, it is astonishing that Gosling could play “only a few chords” on the piano before training for the film. A confidence boost for struggling piano learners everywhere.
It is actually difficult to imagine two better actors for the roles. (Emma Watson allegedly turned it down for “Beauty and the Beast”: something she might be kicking herself for!) Are they both the best singers and dancers when compared to Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Debbie Reynolds (R.I.P.) or Cyd Charisse? No, undoubtedly not, but they have an undeniable charm all of their own. (Perhaps we will see the ilk of the great hoofers and crooners rise again with a resurgence in the classic musical. Can Hollywood take a hint?)
The big question: now that both Stone and Gosling have won Golden Globes for acting in the “Comedy or Musical” category, can they convert that to Oscar glory where there is a single category in play? I’d like to think so.
It’s also great to see proper movie-making taking place in the Hollywood studios again: during my recent visits to LA there seemed to be little other than TV work going on in the main studio complexes there (although its worth pointing out that for this film not all of the filming was actually done on the Warner Brothers lot). (As an aside, the Warner Brothers tour – which you need to book well in advance – is a GREAT day out for movie lovers, with a Sunday visit giving you the best access to live sets. #insideknowledgetrivia: that small grassy triangle with the gravestones on it is where they filmed many of the “Friends” outdoor scenes such as the baseball match!).
Musicals are clearly measured by the quality of the music, and Justin Hurwitz (“Whiplash”) has produced a gem with – notwithstanding the jazz numbers and a catchy little pop number from John Legend – merely a handful of simple but unforgettable melodies that recur in different variations throughout the film. The soundtrack is already in my Amazon library and uplifting my mood on what is a damp and dreary Monday here in the UK.
Damien Chazelle has delivered a triumph in both direction and original script. There is really very little I can fault the film on. In what was the somewhat patchy Coen brothers offering from last year – “Hail Caesar” – there was a standout moment of a throwback song and dance number with Channing Tatum that I raved about (you can catch it here). If I was being picky, then this tantalising snippet would be a better representation of the style and vim of the original genre – – with the exception of the opening number, few of the song and dance numbers in “La La Land” quite get to that “Broadway Melody” level of scale and energy. This, together with a few concerns about the pacing in some places, led me to rate this as a 4.5 on first viewing.
However on now seeing it twice within 36 hours, it’s got me well and truly under its spell! I normally emotionally resist films that arrive with excessive hype… but, in this case… I give in.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A film for all those women who dream of chivalry, but want to kick some ass.
Contains spoilers, click to show
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains."
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Inherent Vice (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
“Inherent Vice” Follows Doc (Joaquin Phoenix), a private investigator, as he falls down a dark rabbit hole into a world of crime and systemic corruption.
Phoenix is a transformative actor, delving deep into his role. We’ve seen him do it before in movies like “Walk the Line.” He becomes his character to the point that it is conceivable this just might be the real him.
It is set in bohemian 1970s California. Everything from the way the camera captures the scene, to the outfits that adorn the characters, exudes a hippy-grunge vibe.
The film encompasses multiple genres including crime, comedy, and drama.
Similar to movies like “The Big Lebowski,” it is filled with humorous moments as Doc, a well-meaning and laid back stoner, is constantly found in the middle of the proverbial shit.
When his ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay (Katherine Waterston) reappears one random day, telling him of a plot to kidnap her billionaire boyfriend and then disappears shortly after, Doc becomes consumed by his investigation into her whereabouts. He is led into a conspiracy-like web of drugs, crime, and corruption.
It is not a typical movie with a coherent storyline, rather it is an experience of what Doc goes through as a mind bending mystery unfolds before him.
Strange, subtle details leave a trail of breadcrumbs for the audience to follow along with Doc, as he tries to make some sense out of the connections he stumbles across.
The plot transpires in a blur, floating into the perceptions of the audience like the winding smoke of an opium den. With a few dull moments, it drags on at times, much like the reality of human experience tends to do.
The musical selection only adds to the film’s tantalizing stylistic ambiance – at times it’s a dull and prolonged high, other times it’s a seedy bluesy underground, or absolute instrumental lunacy. Interestingly, much of the music was composed by Radiohead lead guitarist Jonny Greenwood.
Adding to the intricacy and authenticity of the film, is a brief cameo by what is perhaps the most psychedelic band of our time, The Growlers. This moment will only be recognized by fans who are paying close attention, but is an absolutely fitting detail.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the film from the original novel written by Thomas Pynchon. Like reading a novel, the film is consuming. But because it goes by much quicker than reading a book, it may need to be watched several times for the viewer to grasp exactly what happened.
Audiences will leave theaters with a resonating feeling of pure delirium from the cerebral experience that is “Inherent Vice.”
A surreal masterpiece, I give “Inherent Vice” 5 out of 5 stars.
Phoenix is a transformative actor, delving deep into his role. We’ve seen him do it before in movies like “Walk the Line.” He becomes his character to the point that it is conceivable this just might be the real him.
It is set in bohemian 1970s California. Everything from the way the camera captures the scene, to the outfits that adorn the characters, exudes a hippy-grunge vibe.
The film encompasses multiple genres including crime, comedy, and drama.
Similar to movies like “The Big Lebowski,” it is filled with humorous moments as Doc, a well-meaning and laid back stoner, is constantly found in the middle of the proverbial shit.
When his ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay (Katherine Waterston) reappears one random day, telling him of a plot to kidnap her billionaire boyfriend and then disappears shortly after, Doc becomes consumed by his investigation into her whereabouts. He is led into a conspiracy-like web of drugs, crime, and corruption.
It is not a typical movie with a coherent storyline, rather it is an experience of what Doc goes through as a mind bending mystery unfolds before him.
Strange, subtle details leave a trail of breadcrumbs for the audience to follow along with Doc, as he tries to make some sense out of the connections he stumbles across.
The plot transpires in a blur, floating into the perceptions of the audience like the winding smoke of an opium den. With a few dull moments, it drags on at times, much like the reality of human experience tends to do.
The musical selection only adds to the film’s tantalizing stylistic ambiance – at times it’s a dull and prolonged high, other times it’s a seedy bluesy underground, or absolute instrumental lunacy. Interestingly, much of the music was composed by Radiohead lead guitarist Jonny Greenwood.
Adding to the intricacy and authenticity of the film, is a brief cameo by what is perhaps the most psychedelic band of our time, The Growlers. This moment will only be recognized by fans who are paying close attention, but is an absolutely fitting detail.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the film from the original novel written by Thomas Pynchon. Like reading a novel, the film is consuming. But because it goes by much quicker than reading a book, it may need to be watched several times for the viewer to grasp exactly what happened.
Audiences will leave theaters with a resonating feeling of pure delirium from the cerebral experience that is “Inherent Vice.”
A surreal masterpiece, I give “Inherent Vice” 5 out of 5 stars.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hillbilly Elegy (2020) in Movies
Apr 14, 2021
Decent - with 3 strong female performances
Glenn Close is one of the most lauded Actresses of our time and her current streak of 7 Academy Award nominations without a win is a record. It would be ironic, indeed, if she would win her first Oscar with this, her 8th Oscar nomination, this time as Best Supporting Actress in HILLBILLY ELEGY.
Written by Vanessa Taylor and based on the book (and true story) by J.D. Vance, HILLBILLY ELEGY tells the tale of J.D. (naturally enough), who overcomes his impoverished roots and dysfunctional family background to become a star Law Student at Yale.
Gabriel Basso plays J.D. as the Law Student and he is just not charismatic enough to shine in this role especially as he goes up against 3 talented actresses that have PLENTY to sink their considerable acting chops into.
Close plays “Mamaw”, the grandmother of the clan. She is a no-nonsense, pragmatic matriarch that lives and breathes (through cigarette clogged lungs) “Family First”. It’s an interesting and strong performance by Close, but she does teeter into “Granny Clampett” territory at times for me. It’s a good performance…but the one that will finally get Close her Oscar? I don’t think so.
Amy Adams steals the movie as J.D.’s mother (and Mamaw’s daughter), Bev. She is (as we say in these parts) “a whole thing”. Her Bev is self-centered, clawing, desperate and constantly wondering why the world doesn’t give her the things that she is deserved. Nothing is EVER her fault and if you don’t believe me, just ask her. Adams’ performance is the strongest in this film and she never crosses the line into caricature.
One last moment of credit needs to be given to Haley Bennett as J.D.’s sister Lindsay, who is often the one stuck taking care of their Mother. When I first saw Bennett a few years back in 2016 in back to back strong performances in THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN and THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, I thought we were watching the emergence of a star. It’s good to see her on the screen again.
Credit for these performances must go the unlikely person helming this film, good ol’, reliable Ron Howard who’s workmanlike Directorial instincts and style lends itself very well to this, often told, type of story. It’s nothing flashy, but gets the job done.
And that pretty much sums up my feelings towards this film “nothing flashy, but gets the job done”, not the greatest film to come out in 2020 - but it is layered with 3 strong female performances by Adams, Bennett and Close so that makes this film one good enough to check out.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written by Vanessa Taylor and based on the book (and true story) by J.D. Vance, HILLBILLY ELEGY tells the tale of J.D. (naturally enough), who overcomes his impoverished roots and dysfunctional family background to become a star Law Student at Yale.
Gabriel Basso plays J.D. as the Law Student and he is just not charismatic enough to shine in this role especially as he goes up against 3 talented actresses that have PLENTY to sink their considerable acting chops into.
Close plays “Mamaw”, the grandmother of the clan. She is a no-nonsense, pragmatic matriarch that lives and breathes (through cigarette clogged lungs) “Family First”. It’s an interesting and strong performance by Close, but she does teeter into “Granny Clampett” territory at times for me. It’s a good performance…but the one that will finally get Close her Oscar? I don’t think so.
Amy Adams steals the movie as J.D.’s mother (and Mamaw’s daughter), Bev. She is (as we say in these parts) “a whole thing”. Her Bev is self-centered, clawing, desperate and constantly wondering why the world doesn’t give her the things that she is deserved. Nothing is EVER her fault and if you don’t believe me, just ask her. Adams’ performance is the strongest in this film and she never crosses the line into caricature.
One last moment of credit needs to be given to Haley Bennett as J.D.’s sister Lindsay, who is often the one stuck taking care of their Mother. When I first saw Bennett a few years back in 2016 in back to back strong performances in THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN and THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, I thought we were watching the emergence of a star. It’s good to see her on the screen again.
Credit for these performances must go the unlikely person helming this film, good ol’, reliable Ron Howard who’s workmanlike Directorial instincts and style lends itself very well to this, often told, type of story. It’s nothing flashy, but gets the job done.
And that pretty much sums up my feelings towards this film “nothing flashy, but gets the job done”, not the greatest film to come out in 2020 - but it is layered with 3 strong female performances by Adams, Bennett and Close so that makes this film one good enough to check out.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated Billy and Me in Books
Jun 24, 2019
This is a very, very different genre than I usually read. It was romantic and contemporary and kind of cliche and gross. But I will admit that it was written well.
Despite the gooey topics, this book was easy to sit and read through. The writing was good, though some of the speech didn't feel particularly authentic. My main problem was how cliche this was. A young woman who loves classic literature andworks in a tea shop meets a movie star without realising who he is and falls in love... Yeah, it's kind of a stereotypical romance. I hate this sort of thing. It's tacky and just ugh. But there was more to it than just the romance, which was very good. Sophie had her own issues to deal with, stemming from childhood grief and caring for her mother. It even had a really tragic moment toward the end, that didn't involve the actor - Billy - much at all.
As I mentioned above, the language wasn't always particularly fluid. It sometimes felt like Fletcher was trying too hard to make it more romantic and emotional. Billy was pretty much 'perfect' and extremely romantic, probably extremely unrealistically so. He was likeable, still, just not very realistic.
Sophie herself was a bit... not annoying, but she's not my favourite protagonist ever. She was trying too hard to be unique and strong and independent and it just irritated me. I get what Fletcher was going for (I think) but I just didn't love Sophie that much at all.
Like most other contemporary novels (not that I've actually read many of them), Sophie's life comes together perfectly at the end. Well, not quite perfectly, but the ending was sickly sweet. But I'm a bit of a cynic. You might like this more than me.
Despite the genre and gross cutesy lovey stuff, I think this deserves 3.5 stars. The writing was good and I did actually enjoy reading it.
Despite the gooey topics, this book was easy to sit and read through. The writing was good, though some of the speech didn't feel particularly authentic. My main problem was how cliche this was. A young woman who loves classic literature andworks in a tea shop meets a movie star without realising who he is and falls in love... Yeah, it's kind of a stereotypical romance. I hate this sort of thing. It's tacky and just ugh. But there was more to it than just the romance, which was very good. Sophie had her own issues to deal with, stemming from childhood grief and caring for her mother. It even had a really tragic moment toward the end, that didn't involve the actor - Billy - much at all.
As I mentioned above, the language wasn't always particularly fluid. It sometimes felt like Fletcher was trying too hard to make it more romantic and emotional. Billy was pretty much 'perfect' and extremely romantic, probably extremely unrealistically so. He was likeable, still, just not very realistic.
Sophie herself was a bit... not annoying, but she's not my favourite protagonist ever. She was trying too hard to be unique and strong and independent and it just irritated me. I get what Fletcher was going for (I think) but I just didn't love Sophie that much at all.
Like most other contemporary novels (not that I've actually read many of them), Sophie's life comes together perfectly at the end. Well, not quite perfectly, but the ending was sickly sweet. But I'm a bit of a cynic. You might like this more than me.
Despite the genre and gross cutesy lovey stuff, I think this deserves 3.5 stars. The writing was good and I did actually enjoy reading it.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman Begins‘ ending was a brilliant nod towards the things that were to come, as Gary Oldman’s, newly promoted Lieutenant Jim Gordon flashes The Joker’s calling card, Batman’s revival had now well and truly begun. A film with lesser known villains was about to retread more familiar ground with the introduction of The Joker and Harvey Dent/Two Face.
But this was Christopher Nolan’s more grounded take on the superhero, and his villains needed to be much more than the hammy caricatures that we’d seen before. The late Heath Ledger made the role of The Joker his own in ways that no-one could have imagined. This was a dark, evil and terrifying take on the character with an evil sense if humour but he is in keeping with the villain that we know so well.
The origins of the Dark Knight were covered expertly in the first film, and now it is time to take that story one step further, so consequently this is now more about crime in Gotham City. The criminal underworld is now in turmoil as Batman, Gordon and the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent are leaning on them, but when things turn ugly, they turn ugly!
The beauty of this film is that it takes off pretty much from where the first left off, but the tone has changed a bit. This owes a lot to Michael Mann’s, Heat, and focuses much more on Wayne/Batman’s attempts to rid the city of crime, whilst his opposite and nemesis, The Joker, is proving himself to be nothing less than a pure anarchist, unreasonable and nonnegotiable.
Is this better than Batman Begins? Yes, but only fractionally. It’s slightly tighter and more complex, with every set piece seamlessly moving on to the next complex sequence, where the grand plan is rarely what it appears to be. The film’s narrative is deceptive, playing with its characters and the audience alike. This is film-making at it’s very best. The perfect blend of grand direction, passionate character development and performance and writing, with a narrative and structure designed to engage and enthrall the viewer without patronising or insulting their intelligence.
I believe that this film is a masterpiece and genuinely the best movie of this genre ever made. There are so many examples of how to do a comic adaptation and many great examples to boot, but I feel that this blends them all so well. It’s a franchise film without falling into the trap of being part of franchise. Each film is a real film its own right, with a plot, arch and tone.
The narrative continues, but the feel evolves to suit the film, and though Begins and Knight seamlessly work together, either could also be taken as a film by themselves, each with the integrity to hold their own. But as a franchise movie, it is still littered with nods to the future, or in some cases, more subtle entries into the lore.
Take Mr. Reese for example. This was a name used by The Riddler and many suspected at the time that it was linked to the third film, but so far, there’s no talk of The Riddler’s involvement, in fact there has been an outright denial. But I believe that in effect, he has already appeared, though in a much muted manner. Mr. Coleman Reese, or Mister-REES (mysteries anyone?), threatens to out Wayne as Batman but is stopped by The Joker, but maybe the fact that he worked for a consultancy employed by Wayne Enterprises and threatened Wayne with blackmail etc… was a mild acknowledgment of The Riddler’s character.
This is what we’re talking about when we look at Nolan’s work. He spares nothing, but delivers the film in ways that doesn’t always conform to your expectations. And don’t forget th line about the Cats line either…
Overall, The Dark Knight is the epitome of the reboot genre, taking so much from the original source without copying, but bringing a genuinely deep, thoughtful and emotional take on a comic book character who dresses like a bat and solves crime… May the genius of Christopher Nolan and his team carry on for years to come, but I do fear that he’s heading for a fall, purely on the basis that no-one can produce films of this outstanding quality for ever… can they?
But this was Christopher Nolan’s more grounded take on the superhero, and his villains needed to be much more than the hammy caricatures that we’d seen before. The late Heath Ledger made the role of The Joker his own in ways that no-one could have imagined. This was a dark, evil and terrifying take on the character with an evil sense if humour but he is in keeping with the villain that we know so well.
The origins of the Dark Knight were covered expertly in the first film, and now it is time to take that story one step further, so consequently this is now more about crime in Gotham City. The criminal underworld is now in turmoil as Batman, Gordon and the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent are leaning on them, but when things turn ugly, they turn ugly!
The beauty of this film is that it takes off pretty much from where the first left off, but the tone has changed a bit. This owes a lot to Michael Mann’s, Heat, and focuses much more on Wayne/Batman’s attempts to rid the city of crime, whilst his opposite and nemesis, The Joker, is proving himself to be nothing less than a pure anarchist, unreasonable and nonnegotiable.
Is this better than Batman Begins? Yes, but only fractionally. It’s slightly tighter and more complex, with every set piece seamlessly moving on to the next complex sequence, where the grand plan is rarely what it appears to be. The film’s narrative is deceptive, playing with its characters and the audience alike. This is film-making at it’s very best. The perfect blend of grand direction, passionate character development and performance and writing, with a narrative and structure designed to engage and enthrall the viewer without patronising or insulting their intelligence.
I believe that this film is a masterpiece and genuinely the best movie of this genre ever made. There are so many examples of how to do a comic adaptation and many great examples to boot, but I feel that this blends them all so well. It’s a franchise film without falling into the trap of being part of franchise. Each film is a real film its own right, with a plot, arch and tone.
The narrative continues, but the feel evolves to suit the film, and though Begins and Knight seamlessly work together, either could also be taken as a film by themselves, each with the integrity to hold their own. But as a franchise movie, it is still littered with nods to the future, or in some cases, more subtle entries into the lore.
Take Mr. Reese for example. This was a name used by The Riddler and many suspected at the time that it was linked to the third film, but so far, there’s no talk of The Riddler’s involvement, in fact there has been an outright denial. But I believe that in effect, he has already appeared, though in a much muted manner. Mr. Coleman Reese, or Mister-REES (mysteries anyone?), threatens to out Wayne as Batman but is stopped by The Joker, but maybe the fact that he worked for a consultancy employed by Wayne Enterprises and threatened Wayne with blackmail etc… was a mild acknowledgment of The Riddler’s character.
This is what we’re talking about when we look at Nolan’s work. He spares nothing, but delivers the film in ways that doesn’t always conform to your expectations. And don’t forget th line about the Cats line either…
Overall, The Dark Knight is the epitome of the reboot genre, taking so much from the original source without copying, but bringing a genuinely deep, thoughtful and emotional take on a comic book character who dresses like a bat and solves crime… May the genius of Christopher Nolan and his team carry on for years to come, but I do fear that he’s heading for a fall, purely on the basis that no-one can produce films of this outstanding quality for ever… can they?
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Watchmen - Season 1 in TV
Dec 26, 2019 (Updated Dec 27, 2019)
Pretty much perfect
Watchmen, in my opinion, is one of the best, if not the best graphic novels ever released. It's neon lit alternate reality setting and it's collection of jaded, flawed, and sometimes toxic characters were a far cry from usual comic book territory.
I was absolutely buzzing when I heard that HBO were going to be airing a series based on the property. A series would have more room to breathe and for exploration than the movie (that I still like, for the record). When it became apparent that it would be set some time after the comic, I was honestly a bit miffed. I was looking forward to seeing Rorschach and Co on the small screen...
But it turns out, I had no reason to be worried. Watchmen is outstanding through and through.
Plot wise, it's set in present day, and maintains the events of the comic in the 1980s. The world we're presented with is a world still feeling the effects from the mass killing via giant squid monster from the comic. A world where the police cover their faces to protect their identities. A world where racism is still rife and peddled by a white supremacist group calling themselves The Seventh Cavalry, a group that happen to wear Rorschach masks.
It's set mainly in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and it's distance from the neon New York setting of the comic gives it a more realistic feeling.
Angela Abar, aka Sister Night (Regina King), is heading the investigation into the Cavalry, and when things start to spiral out of control, the FBI send Laurie Blake (Jean Smart) - the retired Silk Spectre - to Tulsa to take over proceedings and figure out what's really happening behind the scenes.
To discuss the plot anymore than this would be spoiling it, but rest assured, after a fairly slow burning start, Watchmen quickly hits an ascending slope of quality that doesn't waver, and when concrete connections to the comic come out to play, the show hits some extremely lofty heights.
The cast are all brilliant. Regina King takes centre stage, and she manages to be badass, relatable, and sympathetic. Her relationship with her husband Cal (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) is one of the best character elements throughout.
Characters that could be described more as 'side characters' played by the likes of Tim Blake Nelson, Louis Gossett Jr, James Woke, and Hong Chau (just to name a few), all end up with surprisingly strong development.
As for the characters from the original comic, we have the aforementioned Laurie Blake played by Jean Smart, and Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandius played by Jeremy Irons.
Jeremy Irons is a undoubtable highlight of the whole series. His portrayal of an older Veidt is pretty spot on, and his plot line is equal parts bizarre and humorous.
As seen from the trailers, Dr. Manhattan has a part to play here as well, but again, no spoilers here. Just have a look for yourself. It's great.
As the narrative jumps around and steams ahead, Watchmen still manages to touch on important subjects, such as war, family, and especially that of race and racism. There are some powerful moments littered throughout, and some genuinely emotional scenes that had me tearing up at times.
The direction and dialogue are brilliant, and the use of digital effects are mostly subtle and look great. The whole season is filled to the brim with amazing shots.
The music score is great as well, especially the original stuff, penned by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Reznor's distinctive industrial sound suits the series down to the ground.
I absolutely loved Watchmen from start to finish. It's shows consistent willingness to do something new and it's a hugely ambitious project that's pulled off so damn well. I really hope that a second season comes about, but if it doesn't, then I'm suitably satisfied by what we've already been given. Just fantastic.
I was absolutely buzzing when I heard that HBO were going to be airing a series based on the property. A series would have more room to breathe and for exploration than the movie (that I still like, for the record). When it became apparent that it would be set some time after the comic, I was honestly a bit miffed. I was looking forward to seeing Rorschach and Co on the small screen...
But it turns out, I had no reason to be worried. Watchmen is outstanding through and through.
Plot wise, it's set in present day, and maintains the events of the comic in the 1980s. The world we're presented with is a world still feeling the effects from the mass killing via giant squid monster from the comic. A world where the police cover their faces to protect their identities. A world where racism is still rife and peddled by a white supremacist group calling themselves The Seventh Cavalry, a group that happen to wear Rorschach masks.
It's set mainly in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and it's distance from the neon New York setting of the comic gives it a more realistic feeling.
Angela Abar, aka Sister Night (Regina King), is heading the investigation into the Cavalry, and when things start to spiral out of control, the FBI send Laurie Blake (Jean Smart) - the retired Silk Spectre - to Tulsa to take over proceedings and figure out what's really happening behind the scenes.
To discuss the plot anymore than this would be spoiling it, but rest assured, after a fairly slow burning start, Watchmen quickly hits an ascending slope of quality that doesn't waver, and when concrete connections to the comic come out to play, the show hits some extremely lofty heights.
The cast are all brilliant. Regina King takes centre stage, and she manages to be badass, relatable, and sympathetic. Her relationship with her husband Cal (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) is one of the best character elements throughout.
Characters that could be described more as 'side characters' played by the likes of Tim Blake Nelson, Louis Gossett Jr, James Woke, and Hong Chau (just to name a few), all end up with surprisingly strong development.
As for the characters from the original comic, we have the aforementioned Laurie Blake played by Jean Smart, and Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandius played by Jeremy Irons.
Jeremy Irons is a undoubtable highlight of the whole series. His portrayal of an older Veidt is pretty spot on, and his plot line is equal parts bizarre and humorous.
As seen from the trailers, Dr. Manhattan has a part to play here as well, but again, no spoilers here. Just have a look for yourself. It's great.
As the narrative jumps around and steams ahead, Watchmen still manages to touch on important subjects, such as war, family, and especially that of race and racism. There are some powerful moments littered throughout, and some genuinely emotional scenes that had me tearing up at times.
The direction and dialogue are brilliant, and the use of digital effects are mostly subtle and look great. The whole season is filled to the brim with amazing shots.
The music score is great as well, especially the original stuff, penned by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Reznor's distinctive industrial sound suits the series down to the ground.
I absolutely loved Watchmen from start to finish. It's shows consistent willingness to do something new and it's a hugely ambitious project that's pulled off so damn well. I really hope that a second season comes about, but if it doesn't, then I'm suitably satisfied by what we've already been given. Just fantastic.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Thor starts when astrophysicist Jane Foster (Portman) discovering a cosmic event in the New Mexico desert with her team Erik Selvig (Skarsgard) and Darcy (Dennings). We head up to Asgard next as Odin (Hopkins) tells the history of his people, the battle with the frost giants, his two sons Thor (Hemsworth) and Loki (Hiddleston) that will one day replace him as King.
When the Frost Giants try to enter Asgard, Thor decides to lead a team to retaliate, which sees Odin banish him to Earth. Thor must learn his place in the universe, with Jane helping him, while Loki takes his place as King of Asgard even if his past sees him wanting the events of the film to happen.
Thoughts on Thor
Characters – Thor is the son of Odin, he is soon to become King, but his over confrontational nature sees him disobeying his father’s orders, he is a fearless warrior who is banished to Earth, without his powers. This is a lesson for him to learn about fighting the right wars, not starting them, until he learns this, his powers won’t return to him. Janes Foster is an astrophysicist that has been searching for answers in the cosmos, her research has seen her finding unexplained answers in the universe, she could finally get answers with Thor’s appearance, she is willing risk her career for answers. Loki is the brother of Thor, he has been planning on taking over Asgard instead of his brother, he knows his past and has been waiting for his moment to become King. Odin is the king of Asgard, he has kept the peace for centuries and is running short on patience for his son’s action, he wants to teach Thor a lesson, while needing to tell Loki about his own past.
Performances – Chris Hemsworth is fantastic in the leading role, he has the look and shows the comic timing which has become the staple of his character. Natalie Portman is strong enough even if the character is disappointing, Tim Hiddleston shows us his calm persona behind his character, with Anthony Hopkins doing everything you would imagine he would bring to a father figure.
Story – The story here follows Thor as he must learn his truth strength when it comes to one day become King of Asgard, this will see him losing his powers and learning to control his desires while his brother is positioning himself for power. Thor is yet another character we knew very little about going in (unless you read the comics), we get to see his past, how the world he is from is created, the dynamics behind the characters involved, even before we get to Earth. On Earth we learn more about the SHIELD and how they are still investigating the bigger picture of unexplained weapons. This does show us just how important waiting for power is more important than being given power, we get to see how another hero is introduced to us for the bigger picture.
Action/Fantasy – The action is at the large scale here with the battles being hordes of enemies for Thor at times, we do get the giant battle against the enemy physically bigger and stronger that Thor must learn to defeat as well as the traditional final fight which shows us the sacrifice a king must make. The fantasy world created shows us the world of Gods being real, being one away from our own, while still being connected in folk lore.
Settings – The vision of Asgard is beautiful, with towering buildings, a place where you would imagine Gods living. The second settings takes us to New Mexico which plans into the fish out of water scenario.
Special Effects – The effects are the best in the franchise to date, the pure scale of the enemies involved, the worlds created and fight sequences makes this look beautiful to watch even with the CGI heavy usage.
Scene of the Movie – Bifrost fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Certain parts of Loki’s plan seem confusing.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the enjoyable comic book movies you will see, we get the big action sequences, we get some laughs and we see the star of Chris Hemsworth take full advantage of his opportunity.
Overall: Great Fun.
When the Frost Giants try to enter Asgard, Thor decides to lead a team to retaliate, which sees Odin banish him to Earth. Thor must learn his place in the universe, with Jane helping him, while Loki takes his place as King of Asgard even if his past sees him wanting the events of the film to happen.
Thoughts on Thor
Characters – Thor is the son of Odin, he is soon to become King, but his over confrontational nature sees him disobeying his father’s orders, he is a fearless warrior who is banished to Earth, without his powers. This is a lesson for him to learn about fighting the right wars, not starting them, until he learns this, his powers won’t return to him. Janes Foster is an astrophysicist that has been searching for answers in the cosmos, her research has seen her finding unexplained answers in the universe, she could finally get answers with Thor’s appearance, she is willing risk her career for answers. Loki is the brother of Thor, he has been planning on taking over Asgard instead of his brother, he knows his past and has been waiting for his moment to become King. Odin is the king of Asgard, he has kept the peace for centuries and is running short on patience for his son’s action, he wants to teach Thor a lesson, while needing to tell Loki about his own past.
Performances – Chris Hemsworth is fantastic in the leading role, he has the look and shows the comic timing which has become the staple of his character. Natalie Portman is strong enough even if the character is disappointing, Tim Hiddleston shows us his calm persona behind his character, with Anthony Hopkins doing everything you would imagine he would bring to a father figure.
Story – The story here follows Thor as he must learn his truth strength when it comes to one day become King of Asgard, this will see him losing his powers and learning to control his desires while his brother is positioning himself for power. Thor is yet another character we knew very little about going in (unless you read the comics), we get to see his past, how the world he is from is created, the dynamics behind the characters involved, even before we get to Earth. On Earth we learn more about the SHIELD and how they are still investigating the bigger picture of unexplained weapons. This does show us just how important waiting for power is more important than being given power, we get to see how another hero is introduced to us for the bigger picture.
Action/Fantasy – The action is at the large scale here with the battles being hordes of enemies for Thor at times, we do get the giant battle against the enemy physically bigger and stronger that Thor must learn to defeat as well as the traditional final fight which shows us the sacrifice a king must make. The fantasy world created shows us the world of Gods being real, being one away from our own, while still being connected in folk lore.
Settings – The vision of Asgard is beautiful, with towering buildings, a place where you would imagine Gods living. The second settings takes us to New Mexico which plans into the fish out of water scenario.
Special Effects – The effects are the best in the franchise to date, the pure scale of the enemies involved, the worlds created and fight sequences makes this look beautiful to watch even with the CGI heavy usage.
Scene of the Movie – Bifrost fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Certain parts of Loki’s plan seem confusing.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the enjoyable comic book movies you will see, we get the big action sequences, we get some laughs and we see the star of Chris Hemsworth take full advantage of his opportunity.
Overall: Great Fun.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Mission: Impossible III (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The summer movie season of 2006 is underway with the release of Mission Impossible 3 which once again stars Tome Cruise as agent Ethan Hunt. The film opens with a tense interrogation scene with an icily cold Philip Seymour Hoffman threatening to shoot a woman unless Ethan reveals the location of something called “The Rabbits Foot”.
The film then goes back in time where Ethan is busy entertaining at a party for his pending marriage where it is learned that he has put his days in the field behind him to be a training instructor as well as his pending marriage to Julia (Michelle Monaghan).
No sooner does the party get info full swing when Ethan is summed to a meeting by a phone call. During the meeting he is given a secret message and learns that one of his prize pupils, Lindsey (Keri Russell), has been captured by a known arms dealer named Owen Davian (Hoffman).
Normal policy is should an agent be captured, they are disavowed and on their own, but for this case, an exception is made and a plan is put into place to retrieve Lindsey. Despite his misgivings, Ethan is drawn back into the fray and joins the rescue team in Berlin.
What at first seems to be a text book rescue takes an unexpected twist and lands Ethan and his team afoul of the company director Brassel (Lawrence Fishburne). This sets the stage for a future operation to obtain Davian at the Vatican as it is hoped they can learn to whom he intends to deliver an item known as “The Rabbits Foot” and exactly what it is.
While things at first seem to go as planned, before long, Ethan and his team must deal with forces outside of their mission plan and are soon caught up in a situation that has grown larger than anyone could have predicted, and with dire consequences.
Sadly, despite the good setup, the film goes very wrong and very fast. One issue that arises is a plot so filled with holes and complications it makes even the most hackneyed summer movie plot seem like a Shakespearean wannabe in comparison. The film goes from one scenario to another with all sorts of new complications many of which are never fully explained, or worse yet left hanging.
Characters act a certain way only to change pace in the film without any explanation. One such scenario involves a character who helps Ethan only to later be revealed as a bad guy, yet the how, where, and why of their actions are never explained, as is one of the key plot devices that drives the film.
While I am willing to expect a certain amount of non-sequitors for a summer movie, the number that M.I. 3” tosses out is ludicrous.
Another glaring issue with the film is the action sequences. Yes, there are a few well planned sequences such as a helicopter chase and a daring battle on a bridge, but they all seem surprisingly flat and lack any real tension or drama. They just simply unfold without fully engaging the viewer.
Another issue is that Director J.J. Abrams uses very close camera angles for some of the action sequences which when combined with the shaky camera style, results in sequences that are very hard to watch due to the frantic motion. I am all for realism, but when I cannot fully understand what is going on as the camera is bouncing all over the scene, then this is a problem.
The final frustration I had with the film falls solely with Cruise himself. Yes I can separate all of the recent off camera exploits that have been well documented the past year, but what I do have an issue with is how unfit Cruise seems for the part. The man is a very good performer with a long history of box office success. Yet, his diminutive size does not make me believe him as an action star. It is hard to believe that he is capable of doing such daring acts of strength as well as dispatching all manner of imposing bad guys. In a very underwhelming finale, Hoffman seemed much more suited as a character of menace as his look and the way he carried himself was one of power. With Cruise, I kept seeing a person trying to make me believe his character was tough guy, and I simply was not buying it. The same was also true for his relationship with Julia. The utter lack of chemistry between them and the awkward and stiff love scenes did nothing to make me believe that this is a person whom Ethan is willing to risk everything for.
Hoffman fresh off his Oscar win for “Capote” does the best he can with what is at best a stock character but he like the supporting Ving Rhames are not given much to work with.
The locales of the film are amazing but sadly they alone cannot carry the film. During the approximately Two Hour and 10 minute run time, there were about 40 minutes of real entertainment for me and much of this came at the start of the film.
While it is better than the last film in the series, the issues I documented above really hamper what could have been, and should have been not only the best film in the series, but is instead another hollow Summer Film that looks flashy, just as long as you do not remove the bumper sticker to see all the dents underneath.
The film then goes back in time where Ethan is busy entertaining at a party for his pending marriage where it is learned that he has put his days in the field behind him to be a training instructor as well as his pending marriage to Julia (Michelle Monaghan).
No sooner does the party get info full swing when Ethan is summed to a meeting by a phone call. During the meeting he is given a secret message and learns that one of his prize pupils, Lindsey (Keri Russell), has been captured by a known arms dealer named Owen Davian (Hoffman).
Normal policy is should an agent be captured, they are disavowed and on their own, but for this case, an exception is made and a plan is put into place to retrieve Lindsey. Despite his misgivings, Ethan is drawn back into the fray and joins the rescue team in Berlin.
What at first seems to be a text book rescue takes an unexpected twist and lands Ethan and his team afoul of the company director Brassel (Lawrence Fishburne). This sets the stage for a future operation to obtain Davian at the Vatican as it is hoped they can learn to whom he intends to deliver an item known as “The Rabbits Foot” and exactly what it is.
While things at first seem to go as planned, before long, Ethan and his team must deal with forces outside of their mission plan and are soon caught up in a situation that has grown larger than anyone could have predicted, and with dire consequences.
Sadly, despite the good setup, the film goes very wrong and very fast. One issue that arises is a plot so filled with holes and complications it makes even the most hackneyed summer movie plot seem like a Shakespearean wannabe in comparison. The film goes from one scenario to another with all sorts of new complications many of which are never fully explained, or worse yet left hanging.
Characters act a certain way only to change pace in the film without any explanation. One such scenario involves a character who helps Ethan only to later be revealed as a bad guy, yet the how, where, and why of their actions are never explained, as is one of the key plot devices that drives the film.
While I am willing to expect a certain amount of non-sequitors for a summer movie, the number that M.I. 3” tosses out is ludicrous.
Another glaring issue with the film is the action sequences. Yes, there are a few well planned sequences such as a helicopter chase and a daring battle on a bridge, but they all seem surprisingly flat and lack any real tension or drama. They just simply unfold without fully engaging the viewer.
Another issue is that Director J.J. Abrams uses very close camera angles for some of the action sequences which when combined with the shaky camera style, results in sequences that are very hard to watch due to the frantic motion. I am all for realism, but when I cannot fully understand what is going on as the camera is bouncing all over the scene, then this is a problem.
The final frustration I had with the film falls solely with Cruise himself. Yes I can separate all of the recent off camera exploits that have been well documented the past year, but what I do have an issue with is how unfit Cruise seems for the part. The man is a very good performer with a long history of box office success. Yet, his diminutive size does not make me believe him as an action star. It is hard to believe that he is capable of doing such daring acts of strength as well as dispatching all manner of imposing bad guys. In a very underwhelming finale, Hoffman seemed much more suited as a character of menace as his look and the way he carried himself was one of power. With Cruise, I kept seeing a person trying to make me believe his character was tough guy, and I simply was not buying it. The same was also true for his relationship with Julia. The utter lack of chemistry between them and the awkward and stiff love scenes did nothing to make me believe that this is a person whom Ethan is willing to risk everything for.
Hoffman fresh off his Oscar win for “Capote” does the best he can with what is at best a stock character but he like the supporting Ving Rhames are not given much to work with.
The locales of the film are amazing but sadly they alone cannot carry the film. During the approximately Two Hour and 10 minute run time, there were about 40 minutes of real entertainment for me and much of this came at the start of the film.
While it is better than the last film in the series, the issues I documented above really hamper what could have been, and should have been not only the best film in the series, but is instead another hollow Summer Film that looks flashy, just as long as you do not remove the bumper sticker to see all the dents underneath.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Virtually Amazing
Ready Player One by Ernest Cline is a novel with such intricate parts and such nostalgia it should be next to impossible to film. In the hands of most directors it would have failed, luckily for Warner Bros. and us as an audience the great Steven Spielberg stepped up. However is this massive task of bringing a world filled with wonder and excitement, too much for the veteran director?
Ready Player One follows Wade Watts in the year 2045, where the world is in decline and people fill their time in the OASIS, a virtual world where everything is possible and the only limits are people’s imagination. When the creator of the OASIS dies, he releases his will to challenge all the users of the OASIS to find his very own Easter Egg inside the game, whoever wins becomes the new owner.
The OASIS is filled with gaming and pop culture references that will always leave you with a smile of nostalgia. When we are transported to the OASIS, the computer animation and voice acting is pretty much spot on. A lot of the humour comes from Spielberg’s direction especially from when we see people in the real world reacting to the events within the OASIS. Without giving too much away there is a scene about halfway through that pays homage to one of the best horror movies of all time: this is the true highlight of the film that I’m sure everyone will enjoy.
In the real world, everyone gives a performance that they can be proud of, particularly Mark Rylance who plays James Halliday. Rylance’s performance is filled with wisdom and creativity but it’s clear to see the moments of vulnerability and clumsiness that could only be put across from a performer like Rylance. Tye Sheridan and Olivia Cooke give adequate performances that they can be proud of and prove that they can lead a film quite comfortably in the future. Simon Pegg also makes an appearance and although much more subtle then what you would expect from the actor, it pays off in an amazing way towards the end of the movie.
Where the film falls a bit short is in the real world. The OASIS is such a joy to explore because it has such elaborate details hidden within. When the film transitions back to the real world, however, it falls a bit flat because it’s not as fully explored. Being a dystopian world you would hope Spielberg would explore that a little more and answer questions about how it came to be.
The action sequences are very good in both the real world and the OASIS and have that classic Steven Spielberg touch you would expect. Although the script relishes in funny one-liners, these can sometimes become a little too cheesy in their delivery.
Steven Spielberg took on an impossible task and does justice to the novel and everyone should really appreciate the genius of the man. He’s created a world that everyone would dream to be part of, and I urge every person who is a fan of his work, or a major lover of pop culture to go and watch this epic tale. I would also like to plug the book, as it does differ from the film enough for you to give it a try, and you will not be disappointed if you enjoyed
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/22/ready-player-one-review-virtually-amazing/
Ready Player One follows Wade Watts in the year 2045, where the world is in decline and people fill their time in the OASIS, a virtual world where everything is possible and the only limits are people’s imagination. When the creator of the OASIS dies, he releases his will to challenge all the users of the OASIS to find his very own Easter Egg inside the game, whoever wins becomes the new owner.
The OASIS is filled with gaming and pop culture references that will always leave you with a smile of nostalgia. When we are transported to the OASIS, the computer animation and voice acting is pretty much spot on. A lot of the humour comes from Spielberg’s direction especially from when we see people in the real world reacting to the events within the OASIS. Without giving too much away there is a scene about halfway through that pays homage to one of the best horror movies of all time: this is the true highlight of the film that I’m sure everyone will enjoy.
In the real world, everyone gives a performance that they can be proud of, particularly Mark Rylance who plays James Halliday. Rylance’s performance is filled with wisdom and creativity but it’s clear to see the moments of vulnerability and clumsiness that could only be put across from a performer like Rylance. Tye Sheridan and Olivia Cooke give adequate performances that they can be proud of and prove that they can lead a film quite comfortably in the future. Simon Pegg also makes an appearance and although much more subtle then what you would expect from the actor, it pays off in an amazing way towards the end of the movie.
Where the film falls a bit short is in the real world. The OASIS is such a joy to explore because it has such elaborate details hidden within. When the film transitions back to the real world, however, it falls a bit flat because it’s not as fully explored. Being a dystopian world you would hope Spielberg would explore that a little more and answer questions about how it came to be.
The action sequences are very good in both the real world and the OASIS and have that classic Steven Spielberg touch you would expect. Although the script relishes in funny one-liners, these can sometimes become a little too cheesy in their delivery.
Steven Spielberg took on an impossible task and does justice to the novel and everyone should really appreciate the genius of the man. He’s created a world that everyone would dream to be part of, and I urge every person who is a fan of his work, or a major lover of pop culture to go and watch this epic tale. I would also like to plug the book, as it does differ from the film enough for you to give it a try, and you will not be disappointed if you enjoyed
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/22/ready-player-one-review-virtually-amazing/