Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Call Me by Your Name (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
There are a swathe of European film-makers like Luca Guadagnino and Paolo Sorrentino that have the skill to make every image they print to film look like a work of art, giving you the feeling you are on the most idyllic holiday you ever had. Watching a largely silent image of a beautiful lake or a tree in the breeze, or an al fresco dinner where family and friends talk freely whilst the wine and olive oil flow is a treat I am not immune to.
Continuing to catch up on Oscar nominated films of recent years I have missed, I went on holiday in 1982 Italy for 2 hours last night. There was culture, architecture, piano music, food, nature, and a big peachy dollop of sensuality – thinly veiled as dramatic cinema. It washed over me like a daydream! And if I say nothing really happens, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a criticism. It ambles along at such a languid pace at times, with such little conflict or incident, but to call it insignificant would be a disservice to the power of love at its palpable heart.
Essentially, it is a right of passage movie, that defies gloriously every hollywood habit of over egging the souffle. For minutes on end we watch Elio, the formidable natural talent of Timothée Chalamet, read a book, go for a swim, ride a bike, play the piano, or fuck some fruit, as he gradually descends into obsession, and ultimately love, for the older Armie Hammer as the aloof and seemingly worldly Oliver, his father’s research assistant for the Summer.
It feels for a long, long time like you might not care, such a tale of rich privilege as it is; but, by the final moments you do realise you have been drawn into the depth of feeling that is often hidden in plain sight, and that you may after all relate to the heartbreak contained in loving an idea of love and passion that is never attainable in reality. The self discovery of a passion within you as a life force is a melancholy reward in and of itself.
I know already that I must return to this film from time to time in a variety of moods, because it has a depth of subtlety that may catch me differently every time; and that is its main power. The key to which is Chalamet. His eyes and body language are so filled with hidden wonders that his words don’t always convey, that his work seems more like a strange dance than your average screen performance, that often simply takes the script and merely reads it aloud.
The remarkable career of Michael Stuhlbarg, as Elio’s father, is also noteworthy here. Take a look at how many great films he has now been a part of and gasp to think, oh wow, that is the same guy! His paternal speech to Elio at the end of this film was a highlight for me. Such gorgeous writing, that combines character with wisdom and weakness in a tapestry of care and regret. Just wonderful.
You know, I came into writing this review feeling that I had found the experience quite disposable and slight. That clearly isn’t the case. This is obviously a film you must watch again, meeting it where it wants to meet you. Not to mention I have always been a Sufjan Stevens fan, and found his contribution to the musical landscape near perfect. In conclusion, there is a banquet here masquerading as a taste of something sweet brushing the lips. I will be back for a second bite in time.
Continuing to catch up on Oscar nominated films of recent years I have missed, I went on holiday in 1982 Italy for 2 hours last night. There was culture, architecture, piano music, food, nature, and a big peachy dollop of sensuality – thinly veiled as dramatic cinema. It washed over me like a daydream! And if I say nothing really happens, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a criticism. It ambles along at such a languid pace at times, with such little conflict or incident, but to call it insignificant would be a disservice to the power of love at its palpable heart.
Essentially, it is a right of passage movie, that defies gloriously every hollywood habit of over egging the souffle. For minutes on end we watch Elio, the formidable natural talent of Timothée Chalamet, read a book, go for a swim, ride a bike, play the piano, or fuck some fruit, as he gradually descends into obsession, and ultimately love, for the older Armie Hammer as the aloof and seemingly worldly Oliver, his father’s research assistant for the Summer.
It feels for a long, long time like you might not care, such a tale of rich privilege as it is; but, by the final moments you do realise you have been drawn into the depth of feeling that is often hidden in plain sight, and that you may after all relate to the heartbreak contained in loving an idea of love and passion that is never attainable in reality. The self discovery of a passion within you as a life force is a melancholy reward in and of itself.
I know already that I must return to this film from time to time in a variety of moods, because it has a depth of subtlety that may catch me differently every time; and that is its main power. The key to which is Chalamet. His eyes and body language are so filled with hidden wonders that his words don’t always convey, that his work seems more like a strange dance than your average screen performance, that often simply takes the script and merely reads it aloud.
The remarkable career of Michael Stuhlbarg, as Elio’s father, is also noteworthy here. Take a look at how many great films he has now been a part of and gasp to think, oh wow, that is the same guy! His paternal speech to Elio at the end of this film was a highlight for me. Such gorgeous writing, that combines character with wisdom and weakness in a tapestry of care and regret. Just wonderful.
You know, I came into writing this review feeling that I had found the experience quite disposable and slight. That clearly isn’t the case. This is obviously a film you must watch again, meeting it where it wants to meet you. Not to mention I have always been a Sufjan Stevens fan, and found his contribution to the musical landscape near perfect. In conclusion, there is a banquet here masquerading as a taste of something sweet brushing the lips. I will be back for a second bite in time.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film that leaves you in two minds.
After all the terrible reviews of this movie (“The Times” reviewer described it as “excreble” which is harsh indeed) I was steeling myself to reach for my 1* rating. I was happy to find that it wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting it to be. Indeed parts of it were positively good fun.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Thunder Force (2021) in Movies
May 23, 2021
I love Octavia Spencer's versatility, so a superhero type of film was intriguing, and the combination of her and Melissa McCarthy felt right. Then they throw in Bobby Cannavale and Jason Bateman too? There appears to be a lot to love about this film.
Lydia and Emily, once the best of friends, are brought back together by a school reunion. But things take a turn as the serum devised by Emily to help their city ends up accidentally changing their lives in a way they hadn't planned for.
We start with a wonderful comic book opening that give a very succinct review of how the whole has shaped the tale we're about to hear. That then drops us into Lydia and Emily's friendship. I really did enjoy this part, and the young Lydia's were particularly good. It gave a solid start to the film and I was feeling optimistic about what was to come after having enjoyed the trailer.
But at this point it starts to show a few issues.
Grown-up Emily (Spencer) feels a little inconsistent. She's reserved initially but it fluctuates a lot throughout, which doesn't feel right for a woman in her position.
Lydia seemed to be much more believable, and the outlandish behaviour was quite amusing while still cementing the caring person that she is, and what we can expect from her going forward.
Spencer and McCarthy do work well together, and the back and forth when it's there is really good, but Emily is never as strong in scenes that they share.
Bobby Cannavale as The King makes an excellent baddie, and Pom Klementieff as a henchwoman is too. They're backed by some wonderfully comedic "muscle", and as a team they work well together. But... while every character is a little quirky, The Crab is where my problems begin. Jason Bateman acts well during the "serious" scenes, but the humour that is attached to his character just didn't land. I was pleased they added in crab-like characteristics, but its amusement was short-lived.
The main problem with the humour in Thunder Force is something I see in other Melissa McCarthy films. It rushes up to the line of going too far, stops briefly, and the crab scuttles straight across it and far off into the distance. Why make one joke when you can make five in a row? This is particularly evident in Lydia and The Crab's interactions, and its repetition became a little tiresome.
The script didn't just mess with these characters, it also ruined a perfectly good (though mildly inexplicable) scene where The King and Laser come face to face with Lydia and Emily. It was going so well and then it jumped over that line. It does do some good things though. There's an ongoing joke with Lydia and her training that did land well every time, and it had some lovely moments of bonding with Tracy and Lydia. How all these things made it into the same film I don't know.
My time watching this didn't feel wasted, but I don't think I'd need to watch it again anytime soon. And that's a shame, because there's a really good film hiding in Thunder Force.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/thunder-force-movie-review.html
Lydia and Emily, once the best of friends, are brought back together by a school reunion. But things take a turn as the serum devised by Emily to help their city ends up accidentally changing their lives in a way they hadn't planned for.
We start with a wonderful comic book opening that give a very succinct review of how the whole has shaped the tale we're about to hear. That then drops us into Lydia and Emily's friendship. I really did enjoy this part, and the young Lydia's were particularly good. It gave a solid start to the film and I was feeling optimistic about what was to come after having enjoyed the trailer.
But at this point it starts to show a few issues.
Grown-up Emily (Spencer) feels a little inconsistent. She's reserved initially but it fluctuates a lot throughout, which doesn't feel right for a woman in her position.
Lydia seemed to be much more believable, and the outlandish behaviour was quite amusing while still cementing the caring person that she is, and what we can expect from her going forward.
Spencer and McCarthy do work well together, and the back and forth when it's there is really good, but Emily is never as strong in scenes that they share.
Bobby Cannavale as The King makes an excellent baddie, and Pom Klementieff as a henchwoman is too. They're backed by some wonderfully comedic "muscle", and as a team they work well together. But... while every character is a little quirky, The Crab is where my problems begin. Jason Bateman acts well during the "serious" scenes, but the humour that is attached to his character just didn't land. I was pleased they added in crab-like characteristics, but its amusement was short-lived.
The main problem with the humour in Thunder Force is something I see in other Melissa McCarthy films. It rushes up to the line of going too far, stops briefly, and the crab scuttles straight across it and far off into the distance. Why make one joke when you can make five in a row? This is particularly evident in Lydia and The Crab's interactions, and its repetition became a little tiresome.
The script didn't just mess with these characters, it also ruined a perfectly good (though mildly inexplicable) scene where The King and Laser come face to face with Lydia and Emily. It was going so well and then it jumped over that line. It does do some good things though. There's an ongoing joke with Lydia and her training that did land well every time, and it had some lovely moments of bonding with Tracy and Lydia. How all these things made it into the same film I don't know.
My time watching this didn't feel wasted, but I don't think I'd need to watch it again anytime soon. And that's a shame, because there's a really good film hiding in Thunder Force.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/thunder-force-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Quantum of Solace (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With the success of “Casino Royale” featuring new Bond Daniel Craig, the world has waiting eagerly for the follow up, “Quantum of Solace” which continues the historic spy franchise.
Picking up exactly where the last film ended, Bond is walking a fine line between revenge and doing his duty after being betrayed by Vesper at the end of the last film. While interrogating a suspect with M (Judy Densch), it is learned that there is an organization that is very dangerous and influential that even has influence in the C.I.A. and MI6.
Before they can learn any further information, a shocking betrayal happens and Bond is in hot pursuit of the suspect across the rooftops of Italy and soon locked in a deadly confrontation with the traitor.
The recent events have M concerned and Bond is dispatched to Haiti to follow on a lead which thanks to a case of mistaken identity leads Bond to a woman named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Olga is involved in a deadly game with a corrupt businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), and a Bolivian General named Medrano (Joaquin Cosio).
Unsure of their involvement, Bond follows Greene, and learns that he heads an environmental group and has designs on a track of desert in Bolivia. Unsure if Greene’s interest in the area is related to diamonds, oil, or something else, M tasks Bond with finding out what is going on, as her superiors are betting that it is related to oil, and with the C.I. A. involved, it is reasoned that the England cannot be left out of an already dwindling oil supply.
It is at this point that the film lost much of its steam for me as the final revelation seemed to be much ado about nothing as this sort of thing happens, and has happened the world over for years and is hardly worthy of involving the MI6, much less the worlds must dangerous spy.
What follows is a series of betrayals and a few action scenes leading up to a fiery climax which almost redeems the film.
Let me say at the outset that I am a Bond fan and a traditionalist. I understand change happens over time and I am not one who thinks that the role began and ended with Sean Connery. I enjoyed Roger Moore though found him a bit camp. Timothy Dalton did not work for me, and George Lazenby was only Bond for one film so it is hard to judge him fairly. That being said, I found Pierce Brosnan to have been the best Bond since Connery as his interpretation of the character is dead on.
Sir Ian Fleming created the character and has said that he was influenced by people he knew. Bond is a well educated and cultured individual who was educated at the top schools, was an officer in the Royal Navy, and is a suave and charming individual as well as a cold and deadly killer when needed. He is scarred by events in his past, as such he relies on alcohol, duty, and woman to get by, but never once allows himself to get to close to anyone.
When they rebooted the franchise with Craig, much of the 40 years of Bond as well as the essence of the character have been lost. Craig’s Bond is not a cultured blue blood, he is a common thug. In my review of “Casino Royale” I mentioned that the new Bond passed up spending a night with a woman in order to pursue a lead, and how Connery would have found time to do both with style.
Craig’s Bond is very light on womanizing and the film has zero sexual tension and only a very brief romance seen that seems tacked on. The underlying themes of Bond has been guns, gadgets, girls, and action, and this film has chosen to pretty much eschew almost all of this as there are zero gadgets in the film and to be honest, I found the plot to be uninspired.
I think that in many ways the people behind the film have tried to get as far away from the past Bond films as possible especially the maniacal villains who were bent on destroying the world.
As an action film, the movie does have its moments and if it was not a Bond film would be a passable action thriller. As a Bond film, it promises the world and will likely disappoint much long term Bond fans and appeal mainly to those who do not have a longstanding history with the character from book to film. I have to wonder if Sir Ian Fleming is spinning in his grave over what they have done to his gentleman spy in the name of progress.
Picking up exactly where the last film ended, Bond is walking a fine line between revenge and doing his duty after being betrayed by Vesper at the end of the last film. While interrogating a suspect with M (Judy Densch), it is learned that there is an organization that is very dangerous and influential that even has influence in the C.I.A. and MI6.
Before they can learn any further information, a shocking betrayal happens and Bond is in hot pursuit of the suspect across the rooftops of Italy and soon locked in a deadly confrontation with the traitor.
The recent events have M concerned and Bond is dispatched to Haiti to follow on a lead which thanks to a case of mistaken identity leads Bond to a woman named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Olga is involved in a deadly game with a corrupt businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), and a Bolivian General named Medrano (Joaquin Cosio).
Unsure of their involvement, Bond follows Greene, and learns that he heads an environmental group and has designs on a track of desert in Bolivia. Unsure if Greene’s interest in the area is related to diamonds, oil, or something else, M tasks Bond with finding out what is going on, as her superiors are betting that it is related to oil, and with the C.I. A. involved, it is reasoned that the England cannot be left out of an already dwindling oil supply.
It is at this point that the film lost much of its steam for me as the final revelation seemed to be much ado about nothing as this sort of thing happens, and has happened the world over for years and is hardly worthy of involving the MI6, much less the worlds must dangerous spy.
What follows is a series of betrayals and a few action scenes leading up to a fiery climax which almost redeems the film.
Let me say at the outset that I am a Bond fan and a traditionalist. I understand change happens over time and I am not one who thinks that the role began and ended with Sean Connery. I enjoyed Roger Moore though found him a bit camp. Timothy Dalton did not work for me, and George Lazenby was only Bond for one film so it is hard to judge him fairly. That being said, I found Pierce Brosnan to have been the best Bond since Connery as his interpretation of the character is dead on.
Sir Ian Fleming created the character and has said that he was influenced by people he knew. Bond is a well educated and cultured individual who was educated at the top schools, was an officer in the Royal Navy, and is a suave and charming individual as well as a cold and deadly killer when needed. He is scarred by events in his past, as such he relies on alcohol, duty, and woman to get by, but never once allows himself to get to close to anyone.
When they rebooted the franchise with Craig, much of the 40 years of Bond as well as the essence of the character have been lost. Craig’s Bond is not a cultured blue blood, he is a common thug. In my review of “Casino Royale” I mentioned that the new Bond passed up spending a night with a woman in order to pursue a lead, and how Connery would have found time to do both with style.
Craig’s Bond is very light on womanizing and the film has zero sexual tension and only a very brief romance seen that seems tacked on. The underlying themes of Bond has been guns, gadgets, girls, and action, and this film has chosen to pretty much eschew almost all of this as there are zero gadgets in the film and to be honest, I found the plot to be uninspired.
I think that in many ways the people behind the film have tried to get as far away from the past Bond films as possible especially the maniacal villains who were bent on destroying the world.
As an action film, the movie does have its moments and if it was not a Bond film would be a passable action thriller. As a Bond film, it promises the world and will likely disappoint much long term Bond fans and appeal mainly to those who do not have a longstanding history with the character from book to film. I have to wonder if Sir Ian Fleming is spinning in his grave over what they have done to his gentleman spy in the name of progress.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Serenity (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Years ago, Star Trek found new life after network cancellation, and gained new legions of fans through syndication, films, spin off series, and countless novels.
While networks have often had a love/hate relationship with Science Fiction shows, few can debate that shows such as Battlestar Galactica, Smallville, Buffy, and The X-Files have proven to be profitable investments for the studios that created them.
Sadly for fans and viewers alike, for every hit there are at least three failures such as The Lone Gunmen, Space Rangers, and Earth 2. Then you get the shows such as Enterprise, Crusade and Firefly that get cancelled before their time, leaving legions of fans to ponder what might have been had the shows been allowed to continue their productions.
When FOX cancelled the show Firefly after a handful of episodes, fans were outraged. The show had developed a loyal following, but did not meet what the studio was after, leaving it as just another failed series.
Thanks to strong DVD sales, the shows creator Joss Whedon was given the chance to bring his series to the big screen and after months and months of delays, the film Serenity has finally been released.
I would like to say at the outset that while I was not a fan of the show, I did catch it in reruns and grew to appreciate much of the quality that was in the show. With my new found appreciation of the show and amidst the wave of growing hype around the release, I attended an early screener of the film several weeks back anxious to see what the excitement was all about.
The film revolves around the crew of a Firefly class ship named Serenity whose Captain Mal (Nathan Fillion), is a former soldier who survived the battle of Serenity Valley during a period of galactic unrest. Mal makes a living as rogue trying to stay ahead of the Alliance and various threats such as the deadly cannibalistic Reavers.
The story involves a young girl named River (Summer Glau) and her physician brother Simon (Sean Maher). The two are fleeing the Alliance where River was being honed to be a weapon of amazing abilities.
In the aftermath of a mission where the deadly Reavers arrive, Mal and the crew find themselves fleeing an Alliance assassin, who has brought the overwhelming might of the Alliance to bear in an effort to capture River.
Of course Mal with no love of the Alliance will not allow this even though many in his crew see new harm in saving their necks by turning her over. As the film unfolds it leads to the discovery of why the Alliance is so desperate to keep the knowledge River has obtained a secret and a deadly confrontation between the crew, the Reavers, and the Alliance.
As much as I tried to like this film, I was unable to. The film plods along for almost 90 minutes before getting to any sustained action, and when it finally does arrive, it is so by the book and underwhelming, I felt cheated. Two gigantic fleets converge and I think we are going to get a grand battle. Instead, the film gives us about 90 seconds of action only to take the story to a bland locale in a poorly decorated and conceived set.
After sitting through such a large setup, and enduring a cast that often is about as exciting in this film as watching paint dry, I thought something more should be done. I would have expected this from a show that was on television, but for a film version, it was lacking much of the energy that is needed to maintain a feature films.
I am not saying that the cast are bad actors, far from it, but they spend a lot of the film with a dear in the headlights look that underscores that this is first and foremost a TV. show. As such, the cast and many of the sets and effects seem underpowered in the transition to the screen.
The entire length of the film, I thought I was watching an inexpensive television series rather than a major studio release. As such, I had a hard time caring for the characters.
A few nights ago I watched another episode of the series on the Sci Fi Channel and I was amazed at how interesting the characters were, how engrossing the story was, and how much humor and action it had. While the film attempts to convey this, much of it falls flat. Serenity will make a good film series with a bit more effort, but as it stands now, the film is little more than a TV movie of the week for die hard fans only. This is sad as with a bit more polish it could have, and should have been much, much more.
While networks have often had a love/hate relationship with Science Fiction shows, few can debate that shows such as Battlestar Galactica, Smallville, Buffy, and The X-Files have proven to be profitable investments for the studios that created them.
Sadly for fans and viewers alike, for every hit there are at least three failures such as The Lone Gunmen, Space Rangers, and Earth 2. Then you get the shows such as Enterprise, Crusade and Firefly that get cancelled before their time, leaving legions of fans to ponder what might have been had the shows been allowed to continue their productions.
When FOX cancelled the show Firefly after a handful of episodes, fans were outraged. The show had developed a loyal following, but did not meet what the studio was after, leaving it as just another failed series.
Thanks to strong DVD sales, the shows creator Joss Whedon was given the chance to bring his series to the big screen and after months and months of delays, the film Serenity has finally been released.
I would like to say at the outset that while I was not a fan of the show, I did catch it in reruns and grew to appreciate much of the quality that was in the show. With my new found appreciation of the show and amidst the wave of growing hype around the release, I attended an early screener of the film several weeks back anxious to see what the excitement was all about.
The film revolves around the crew of a Firefly class ship named Serenity whose Captain Mal (Nathan Fillion), is a former soldier who survived the battle of Serenity Valley during a period of galactic unrest. Mal makes a living as rogue trying to stay ahead of the Alliance and various threats such as the deadly cannibalistic Reavers.
The story involves a young girl named River (Summer Glau) and her physician brother Simon (Sean Maher). The two are fleeing the Alliance where River was being honed to be a weapon of amazing abilities.
In the aftermath of a mission where the deadly Reavers arrive, Mal and the crew find themselves fleeing an Alliance assassin, who has brought the overwhelming might of the Alliance to bear in an effort to capture River.
Of course Mal with no love of the Alliance will not allow this even though many in his crew see new harm in saving their necks by turning her over. As the film unfolds it leads to the discovery of why the Alliance is so desperate to keep the knowledge River has obtained a secret and a deadly confrontation between the crew, the Reavers, and the Alliance.
As much as I tried to like this film, I was unable to. The film plods along for almost 90 minutes before getting to any sustained action, and when it finally does arrive, it is so by the book and underwhelming, I felt cheated. Two gigantic fleets converge and I think we are going to get a grand battle. Instead, the film gives us about 90 seconds of action only to take the story to a bland locale in a poorly decorated and conceived set.
After sitting through such a large setup, and enduring a cast that often is about as exciting in this film as watching paint dry, I thought something more should be done. I would have expected this from a show that was on television, but for a film version, it was lacking much of the energy that is needed to maintain a feature films.
I am not saying that the cast are bad actors, far from it, but they spend a lot of the film with a dear in the headlights look that underscores that this is first and foremost a TV. show. As such, the cast and many of the sets and effects seem underpowered in the transition to the screen.
The entire length of the film, I thought I was watching an inexpensive television series rather than a major studio release. As such, I had a hard time caring for the characters.
A few nights ago I watched another episode of the series on the Sci Fi Channel and I was amazed at how interesting the characters were, how engrossing the story was, and how much humor and action it had. While the film attempts to convey this, much of it falls flat. Serenity will make a good film series with a bit more effort, but as it stands now, the film is little more than a TV movie of the week for die hard fans only. This is sad as with a bit more polish it could have, and should have been much, much more.
mostlyinpyjamas (13 KP) rated It Only Happens in the Movies in Books
Nov 25, 2017
Another cracker by Holly Bourne
The blurb; Audrey is over romance. Since her parents relationship imploded her mother’s been catatonic, so she takes a cinema job to get out of the house. But there she meets wannabe film-maker Harry.
Nobody expects Audrey and Harry to fall in love as hard and fast as they do. But that doesn’t mean things are easy.
Because real love isn’t like the movies…The greatest love story ever told doesn’t feature kissing in the snow, or racing to airports. It features pain and confusion and hope and wonder, and a ban on cheesy clichés. Oh, and Zombies.
~
I’m a huge fan of Holly Bourne, and with It only happens in the movies she has written another cracker!
It only happens in the movies challenges all those cliches from romantic movies, and the message they give about what love and relationships are like.
Audrey is instantly likeable, positive feminist characters are exactly what’s needed and Holly Bourne writes them so well. Audrey is getting over being dumped after having sex for the first time, trying to cope with her mum having a breakdown, and she’s been distant from her friends since her break up, her life is messy – and then she meets Harry.
Harry, with a reputation for being a player! He doesn’t always understand Audrey’s point of view, and he says the wrong things …
‘You’re not like other girls, are you?
but I like Harry. He tries!
In chapter 25, Audrey and her friend Alice talk about first time sex in a refreshingly honest way and this is, in my opinion, such an important thing to see in young adult books. Some girls, for whatever reason, don’t have someone they can talk about these things with, and I feel that it’s such a good thing that authors such as Holly Bourne are putting it out there.
I’ve read a number of feminist YA books this week, and I’m so pleased that they are being written. Conversations about consent, sexism, misogyny and rape culture are so important and these books help to get the message out there.
Excerpt from the book ; Men in films regularly kiss women who don’t want to be kissed. And those are supposed to be the good kisses. Either the woman is taken by surprise, or storming off in a mood, or having a huge go at them, or is engaged to somebody else, or claims she’s just plain Not Interested. And,how do men in movies respond to this clear instruction of “no”? They grab the woman’s face, and kiss her anyway. Roughly. Using their masculine force. And rather than being slapped or even arrested, these movie men are rewarded for their… well… sexual violence. The women “give into” the kiss after a brief moment of fighting it. You see, according to Hollywood, these women wanted to be kissed all along. It was just the male lead’s job to break through the barriers. Barriers like WILFUL CONSENT. Outside Hollywood movies, there is a term for being kissed against your will. This term isn’t “spontaneous” or “romantic” or “passionate”. No, it’s called sexual assault. It’s a crime punishable in the UK by up to ten years in prison.
~
Holly Bourne writes about feminist issues without being patronising and without telling her readers that we should hate all men.
If I’ve made it sound at all like It only happens in the movies is all feminist messages and no story then I must add that it’s entirely not that at all.
I enjoyed the story so much that I read it over a weekend, staying up far too late because I just couldn’t put it down. There’s plenty of drama, humour, and some lovely, touching moments! The ending – although it was perfect – exactly the way this story was meant to end – broke me. I cried actual tears.
Love isn’t just a feeling. Love is a choice too. And you may not be able to help your feelings, but you are responsible for the choices you make about what to do with them. (From It only happens in the movies).
Nobody expects Audrey and Harry to fall in love as hard and fast as they do. But that doesn’t mean things are easy.
Because real love isn’t like the movies…The greatest love story ever told doesn’t feature kissing in the snow, or racing to airports. It features pain and confusion and hope and wonder, and a ban on cheesy clichés. Oh, and Zombies.
~
I’m a huge fan of Holly Bourne, and with It only happens in the movies she has written another cracker!
It only happens in the movies challenges all those cliches from romantic movies, and the message they give about what love and relationships are like.
Audrey is instantly likeable, positive feminist characters are exactly what’s needed and Holly Bourne writes them so well. Audrey is getting over being dumped after having sex for the first time, trying to cope with her mum having a breakdown, and she’s been distant from her friends since her break up, her life is messy – and then she meets Harry.
Harry, with a reputation for being a player! He doesn’t always understand Audrey’s point of view, and he says the wrong things …
‘You’re not like other girls, are you?
but I like Harry. He tries!
In chapter 25, Audrey and her friend Alice talk about first time sex in a refreshingly honest way and this is, in my opinion, such an important thing to see in young adult books. Some girls, for whatever reason, don’t have someone they can talk about these things with, and I feel that it’s such a good thing that authors such as Holly Bourne are putting it out there.
I’ve read a number of feminist YA books this week, and I’m so pleased that they are being written. Conversations about consent, sexism, misogyny and rape culture are so important and these books help to get the message out there.
Excerpt from the book ; Men in films regularly kiss women who don’t want to be kissed. And those are supposed to be the good kisses. Either the woman is taken by surprise, or storming off in a mood, or having a huge go at them, or is engaged to somebody else, or claims she’s just plain Not Interested. And,how do men in movies respond to this clear instruction of “no”? They grab the woman’s face, and kiss her anyway. Roughly. Using their masculine force. And rather than being slapped or even arrested, these movie men are rewarded for their… well… sexual violence. The women “give into” the kiss after a brief moment of fighting it. You see, according to Hollywood, these women wanted to be kissed all along. It was just the male lead’s job to break through the barriers. Barriers like WILFUL CONSENT. Outside Hollywood movies, there is a term for being kissed against your will. This term isn’t “spontaneous” or “romantic” or “passionate”. No, it’s called sexual assault. It’s a crime punishable in the UK by up to ten years in prison.
~
Holly Bourne writes about feminist issues without being patronising and without telling her readers that we should hate all men.
If I’ve made it sound at all like It only happens in the movies is all feminist messages and no story then I must add that it’s entirely not that at all.
I enjoyed the story so much that I read it over a weekend, staying up far too late because I just couldn’t put it down. There’s plenty of drama, humour, and some lovely, touching moments! The ending – although it was perfect – exactly the way this story was meant to end – broke me. I cried actual tears.
Love isn’t just a feeling. Love is a choice too. And you may not be able to help your feelings, but you are responsible for the choices you make about what to do with them. (From It only happens in the movies).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 7, 2019
Hader steals the film
The "secret sauce" of the first chapter of IT (based on the horror novel by Stephen King) was NOT the gore or scares that were thrown at the audience, it was the characters and the performances that made that first film work. The young members of the "Loser's Club" - and especially the young actors populating these characters - created people that you wanted to root and cheer for throughout their ordeal with Pennywise the Clown and the bullies of Derry.
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Cats (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
[Nostalgia enters the room looking cheery. A cat lurks in the background. Nostalgia starts tapdancing. Suddenly a red dot appears on Nostalgia's back and the cat savagely attacks it, leaving it bloody and beaten on the ground.]
As I've been saying to people... this film isn't good, but it's also not entirely bad, it has its moments.
Let's talk about the CGI first. You know what? It's not all that bad. Take out whatever you think about the concept of the human cats the fur in the second trailer looked much better than its first outing. During the film, Old Deuteronomy looked so fluffy I just wanted to pet her. The ear movements were pretty good, if a little consistent, it felt a little like they'd looked up cat actions in a book and taken the textbook description to animate rather than watching an actual cat. The cats as a whole could probably been a little larger compared to the "life-sized" staging around them because the ratio did feel a little off, but it wasn't really enough to make it off-putting.
Ever since I saw Cats at the cinema I've been singing the songs, but that's off the back of me listening to the stage recordings on Spotify and not the film versions. They don't quite have the same pep of the originals, watching them wasn't the wondrous experience I was hoping for. There are small exceptions. Taylor Swift was excellent and set a perfect tone for her number. Jason Derulo is a showman in this and after his Red Dwarf Cat-like clip in the trailer I was excited for his full numbers, they didn't disappoint.
Memory has to be my favourite song since seeing it on the stage and I was keen to see the talented Jennifer Hudson perform it. When it surfaced briefly I was worried, there was no impact, no heart... potential disaster. Finally the full number happened at the end and I was convinced. I listened to Hudson sing with such emotion that I cried, streams of tears and a quivering lip. It was beautiful.
The rest of the cast, while chockful of talent, didn't have quite the same buzz about it.
Francesca Hayward is a massively talented ballerina but the acting portion of the performance didn't quite hit the spot. This wasn't helped by the advert that has been running with her and Jennifer Hudson before the trailer was running before every film I watched for about two weeks.
I love Dame Judi and Sir Ian, and it was fun seeing them in this, but both had their issues. I wasn't a fan of Dench's moments of singing and the melancholy role of Gus for McKellen was a little unsettling. Who doesn't love seeing an Idris Elba film? He does the bad "guy" well but there was something wrong here too, I think that was partly to do with that fur torso.
It would be entirely possible to go on and on about this and all its ins and outs, but I don't think either of us have the time for that. I do feel that having the previous knowledge of Cats on the stage will help immensely when seeing this. That does also have some drawbacks though, when we saw it at the theatre it was a very interactive experience with the cats in the aisles with the audience and that's something the film can't compete with. I'm tempted to say that they should have forgone CGI aspects for the most part and had costumed cast. Making something more realistic when everything around it is unrealistic (in that it's not quite what we're used to as regular-sized humans) makes everything more confusing, perhaps the low tech angle would have made it a little less scary to some.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/cats-movie-review.html
As I've been saying to people... this film isn't good, but it's also not entirely bad, it has its moments.
Let's talk about the CGI first. You know what? It's not all that bad. Take out whatever you think about the concept of the human cats the fur in the second trailer looked much better than its first outing. During the film, Old Deuteronomy looked so fluffy I just wanted to pet her. The ear movements were pretty good, if a little consistent, it felt a little like they'd looked up cat actions in a book and taken the textbook description to animate rather than watching an actual cat. The cats as a whole could probably been a little larger compared to the "life-sized" staging around them because the ratio did feel a little off, but it wasn't really enough to make it off-putting.
Ever since I saw Cats at the cinema I've been singing the songs, but that's off the back of me listening to the stage recordings on Spotify and not the film versions. They don't quite have the same pep of the originals, watching them wasn't the wondrous experience I was hoping for. There are small exceptions. Taylor Swift was excellent and set a perfect tone for her number. Jason Derulo is a showman in this and after his Red Dwarf Cat-like clip in the trailer I was excited for his full numbers, they didn't disappoint.
Memory has to be my favourite song since seeing it on the stage and I was keen to see the talented Jennifer Hudson perform it. When it surfaced briefly I was worried, there was no impact, no heart... potential disaster. Finally the full number happened at the end and I was convinced. I listened to Hudson sing with such emotion that I cried, streams of tears and a quivering lip. It was beautiful.
The rest of the cast, while chockful of talent, didn't have quite the same buzz about it.
Francesca Hayward is a massively talented ballerina but the acting portion of the performance didn't quite hit the spot. This wasn't helped by the advert that has been running with her and Jennifer Hudson before the trailer was running before every film I watched for about two weeks.
I love Dame Judi and Sir Ian, and it was fun seeing them in this, but both had their issues. I wasn't a fan of Dench's moments of singing and the melancholy role of Gus for McKellen was a little unsettling. Who doesn't love seeing an Idris Elba film? He does the bad "guy" well but there was something wrong here too, I think that was partly to do with that fur torso.
It would be entirely possible to go on and on about this and all its ins and outs, but I don't think either of us have the time for that. I do feel that having the previous knowledge of Cats on the stage will help immensely when seeing this. That does also have some drawbacks though, when we saw it at the theatre it was a very interactive experience with the cats in the aisles with the audience and that's something the film can't compete with. I'm tempted to say that they should have forgone CGI aspects for the most part and had costumed cast. Making something more realistic when everything around it is unrealistic (in that it's not quite what we're used to as regular-sized humans) makes everything more confusing, perhaps the low tech angle would have made it a little less scary to some.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/cats-movie-review.html
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Clue (1985) in Movies
Nov 3, 2020
The Multiple Endings (2 more)
The Cast
The Humor
All Time Favorites
Ive seen Clue about nine times now and it has become a tradition to watch Clue every October. I remember watching clue the first time and i laughed my ass off and i still do that. The humor is excellent, the cast is excellent, the multiple endings are excellent. Everything about Clue is excellent.
The plot: Based on the popular board game, this comedy begins at a dinner party hosted by Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), where he admits to blackmailing his visitors. These guests, who have been given aliases, are Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) and Col. Mustard (Martin Mull). When Boddy turns up murdered, all are suspects, and together they try to figure out who is the killer.
The film was produced by Debra Hill and the story was by John Landis.
In keeping with the nature of the board game, the theatrical release included three possible endings, with different theaters receiving one of the three endings. In the film's home video release, all three endings were included.
The multiple-ending concept was developed by John Landis, who claimed in an interview to have invited playwright Tom Stoppard, writer and composer Stephen Sondheim, and actor Anthony Perkins to write the screenplay. The script was ultimately finished by director Jonathan Lynn.
A fourth ending was filmed, but Lynn removed it because as he later stated, "It really wasn't very good. I looked at it, and I thought, 'No, no, no, we've got to get rid of that.'" In the unused fourth ending, Wadsworth committed all of the murders. He was motivated by his desire for perfection. Having failed to be either the perfect husband or the perfect butler, he decided to be the perfect murderer instead. Wadsworth reports that he poisoned the champagne the guests had drunk earlier so they would soon die, leaving no witnesses. The police and the FBI arrive and Wadsworth is arrested. He breaks free and steals a police car, but his escape is thwarted when three police dogs lunge from the back seat. This ending is documented in Clue: The Storybook, a tie-in book released in conjunction with the film.
Carrie Fisher was originally contracted to portray Miss Scarlet, but withdrew to enter treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Jonathan Lynn's first choice for the role of Wadsworth was Leonard Rossiter, but he died before filming commenced. The second choice was Rowan Atkinson, but it was decided that he wasn't well known enough at the time, so Tim Curry was eventually cast.
Mrs. White's famous "Flames" speech was improvised by Madeline Kahn.
A documentary about the movie is being made, including interviews already filmed with the director, writer, and several cast members including Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean, Colleen Camp, and Lee Ving.
I love Clue, it is one of my all time favorite films. In my top ten best films of all time at number #3 and just excellent.
Happy Halloween everybody.
The plot: Based on the popular board game, this comedy begins at a dinner party hosted by Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), where he admits to blackmailing his visitors. These guests, who have been given aliases, are Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) and Col. Mustard (Martin Mull). When Boddy turns up murdered, all are suspects, and together they try to figure out who is the killer.
The film was produced by Debra Hill and the story was by John Landis.
In keeping with the nature of the board game, the theatrical release included three possible endings, with different theaters receiving one of the three endings. In the film's home video release, all three endings were included.
The multiple-ending concept was developed by John Landis, who claimed in an interview to have invited playwright Tom Stoppard, writer and composer Stephen Sondheim, and actor Anthony Perkins to write the screenplay. The script was ultimately finished by director Jonathan Lynn.
A fourth ending was filmed, but Lynn removed it because as he later stated, "It really wasn't very good. I looked at it, and I thought, 'No, no, no, we've got to get rid of that.'" In the unused fourth ending, Wadsworth committed all of the murders. He was motivated by his desire for perfection. Having failed to be either the perfect husband or the perfect butler, he decided to be the perfect murderer instead. Wadsworth reports that he poisoned the champagne the guests had drunk earlier so they would soon die, leaving no witnesses. The police and the FBI arrive and Wadsworth is arrested. He breaks free and steals a police car, but his escape is thwarted when three police dogs lunge from the back seat. This ending is documented in Clue: The Storybook, a tie-in book released in conjunction with the film.
Carrie Fisher was originally contracted to portray Miss Scarlet, but withdrew to enter treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Jonathan Lynn's first choice for the role of Wadsworth was Leonard Rossiter, but he died before filming commenced. The second choice was Rowan Atkinson, but it was decided that he wasn't well known enough at the time, so Tim Curry was eventually cast.
Mrs. White's famous "Flames" speech was improvised by Madeline Kahn.
A documentary about the movie is being made, including interviews already filmed with the director, writer, and several cast members including Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean, Colleen Camp, and Lee Ving.
I love Clue, it is one of my all time favorite films. In my top ten best films of all time at number #3 and just excellent.
Happy Halloween everybody.