Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sully (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
No, not “Monsters Inc 3”.
Chesley Sullenberger was just a very experienced US Airways pilot starting an everyday job flying from LaGuardia airport in New York to Charlotte when fate stepped in. Following an extensive bird strike and the loss of both engines, ‘Sully’ achieved worldwide fame by landing his aircraft and all 151 passengers and crew safely on the Hudson river. Sully is immediately acclaimed by the public as a hero; US Airways, and their insurers, however, are not necessarily as impressed given that their plane has got rather soggy when the flight data suggests it might have actually been able to make it to a landing at a number of nearby airports. So a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) inquiry is called, where a decision against Sully could see him facing the fastest fall from grace since Icarus.
This film is obviously based on this real-life ‘Miracle on the Hudson’ and to a large extent the recreation of the crash…. sorry… “forced water landing” is both vivid and gripping. The film is certainly unlikely to make the regular list of in-flight movies for nervous passengers, but it does serve as a good training film for all of those regular airline passengers who don’t “put down their reading materials” to listen to the aircraft safety announcement.
Director Clint Eastwood has delivered a highly watchable action sequence showcasing the undisputed acting talents of Tom Hanks (playing Sully) and his Aaron Eckhard (“Olympus Has Fallen”, playing the co-pilot Jeff Skiles). This makes for a great 45 minute film. The problem is the other 51 minutes.
Where the film works well – aside from the actual recreation itself – is in representing the post-traumatic stress experienced by Sully, with his insomnia and regular flashbacks of ‘what might have happened’ (anyone still strongly affected by 9/11 will struggle with these scenes). The final NTSB hearing scenes are also well-done and suitably gripping: particularly for viewers outside of the UK where we wouldn’t have heard the outcome of the affair once the news cycle had moved on from the ‘gee-whizz’ headline event.
Where the film aquaplanes somewhat is in the padding achieved through multiple (MULTIPLE!) scenes of New Yorkers back-slapping Sully. Some of this is needed to establish the pedestal that Sully is set upon: the bar scene, for example, is well done. But all the rest of the references become just plain tiresome.
There is also a back-story focused on Sully’s financial problems and rather scratchy marriage (as portrayed) to Lorraine (Laura Linney). Linney is normally a highly-watchable actress, but here her character is just so irritating that the mood of the film plummets every time she reappears on screen.
The key problem that screenwriter Todd Komarnicki (“Elf”!!) had here is the obvious one: that as a real-event (based on Sullenberger’s own book “Highest Duty”) he would have had more scope to build tension if the flight had lasted more than 208 seconds! We end up with little visibility into the back-stories of the passengers. We get to see a father and two grown-up sons who – as fate would have it – just manage to catch the doomed plane: and we end up caring what happens to them. But this approach could have perhaps been usefully extended to feature more of the passenger back-stories (without getting the full “Airport” soap treatment).
Clint Eastwood is also clearly an All-American patriot, and in common with some of his other films he can’t help himself from putting up rather soupy statements about the self-sacrifice of New Yorkers (“the best of New York came together”): when actually the rescue teams did what they were paid to do and Ferry captains did what you or I would do if we stumbled on the scene! These sentiments might go down well in the States: in the cynical UK they tend to generate snorts of irritation.
What IS nice are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) during the closing credits where the real Sully, Skiles, cabin-crew and passengers appear together in a celebration of continued life against all the odds. And just so you are aware, this is done as two separate segments during the titles, so if you don’t want to be one of those people standing in the aisles with your coat half on, then wait for the second one!
A curate’s egg of a film: great in places, but overall not as well executed as it could have been.
This film is obviously based on this real-life ‘Miracle on the Hudson’ and to a large extent the recreation of the crash…. sorry… “forced water landing” is both vivid and gripping. The film is certainly unlikely to make the regular list of in-flight movies for nervous passengers, but it does serve as a good training film for all of those regular airline passengers who don’t “put down their reading materials” to listen to the aircraft safety announcement.
Director Clint Eastwood has delivered a highly watchable action sequence showcasing the undisputed acting talents of Tom Hanks (playing Sully) and his Aaron Eckhard (“Olympus Has Fallen”, playing the co-pilot Jeff Skiles). This makes for a great 45 minute film. The problem is the other 51 minutes.
Where the film works well – aside from the actual recreation itself – is in representing the post-traumatic stress experienced by Sully, with his insomnia and regular flashbacks of ‘what might have happened’ (anyone still strongly affected by 9/11 will struggle with these scenes). The final NTSB hearing scenes are also well-done and suitably gripping: particularly for viewers outside of the UK where we wouldn’t have heard the outcome of the affair once the news cycle had moved on from the ‘gee-whizz’ headline event.
Where the film aquaplanes somewhat is in the padding achieved through multiple (MULTIPLE!) scenes of New Yorkers back-slapping Sully. Some of this is needed to establish the pedestal that Sully is set upon: the bar scene, for example, is well done. But all the rest of the references become just plain tiresome.
There is also a back-story focused on Sully’s financial problems and rather scratchy marriage (as portrayed) to Lorraine (Laura Linney). Linney is normally a highly-watchable actress, but here her character is just so irritating that the mood of the film plummets every time she reappears on screen.
The key problem that screenwriter Todd Komarnicki (“Elf”!!) had here is the obvious one: that as a real-event (based on Sullenberger’s own book “Highest Duty”) he would have had more scope to build tension if the flight had lasted more than 208 seconds! We end up with little visibility into the back-stories of the passengers. We get to see a father and two grown-up sons who – as fate would have it – just manage to catch the doomed plane: and we end up caring what happens to them. But this approach could have perhaps been usefully extended to feature more of the passenger back-stories (without getting the full “Airport” soap treatment).
Clint Eastwood is also clearly an All-American patriot, and in common with some of his other films he can’t help himself from putting up rather soupy statements about the self-sacrifice of New Yorkers (“the best of New York came together”): when actually the rescue teams did what they were paid to do and Ferry captains did what you or I would do if we stumbled on the scene! These sentiments might go down well in the States: in the cynical UK they tend to generate snorts of irritation.
What IS nice are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) during the closing credits where the real Sully, Skiles, cabin-crew and passengers appear together in a celebration of continued life against all the odds. And just so you are aware, this is done as two separate segments during the titles, so if you don’t want to be one of those people standing in the aisles with your coat half on, then wait for the second one!
A curate’s egg of a film: great in places, but overall not as well executed as it could have been.
TD Ameritrade Mobile Trader
Finance
App
Whether you are a bull or a bear, trade anywhere with the world’s most powerful trading platform...
DocScanner 8
Productivity and Business
6.0
Rate It
App
** Over 1.500.000 Times Downloaded! ** ** The Original Scanner App ** ** Featured On App Store TV...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Shining Resonance Refrain in Video Games
Aug 14, 2019
I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve never been a huge fan of JRPG’s, but I really don’t have any reasons why. Growing up I loved watching the Shogun Warrior feature length cartoons and I’m a huge fan of RPG’s in general, so you’d think they’d be right up my alley. I’ve tried and tried to figure out why I have such a hard time sinking into them, and while I have never completed a Final Fantasy game, I continue to buy them in the hopes that one of these days I’ll just get it. So, I’m probably not the first person that would come to mind to review a game like Shining Resonance Refrain, a game that was released exclusively in Japan on PS3 back in 2014. Yet here we are, 4 years later, with a version released for the PS4, Xbox One, PC, and Nintendo Switch, with updated graphics and English voice acting.
Shining Resonance Refrain has you take on the role of a young man named Yuma who has been held captive and experimented on by the main antagonists of the game, the Lombardian Empire. Yuma possesses the soul of the Shining Dragon, the most powerful dragon in the land of Alfheim. The Lombardian Empire is attempting to gather all the souls of the long-forgotten dragons in an effort to break a stalemate between the waring countries of Astoria and the Lombardian Empire. The only thing standing in their way are Yuma, his dragon soul and a powerful set of weapons known as the Armonics.
Quests and exploration are key to moving the story along, with the main quests involving attempts to hinder the Lombardian Empire’s search for the remaining dragon souls. There are also side quests that help you earn money and experience for your characters. The quests are either your typical fetch type quests or the type where you go to this area, fight this major boss, and then return to the castle. The world is broken up into much smaller zones, representing numerous landmarks on the map. Traveling to a particular spot on the map means going from zone to zone until you reach your final destination. The zones are very small, so traveling between them isn’t a huge problem, but not being able to use fast-travel between the zones you have already explored means you will spend a lot of time going back and forth between your castle and your next quest. It isn’t a huge deal breaker in the game, but the areas aren’t always very interesting, and going back and forth amongst the same areas over and over can get old the further you get in the game.
Combat is a mixed bag as well. During your quests, you will encounter various creatures wandering the zones. The battles take place in real time and each character has a set of action points that are used for physical attacks and magic points used for your special abilities and “breaker” moves. As your character levels up, you gain access to different magical attacks, which you can swap out as you choose, but most of the time your battles are simply button mashing your way through them with little strategy involved. The battles are also extremely inconsistent, as battling the various creatures is almost too easy (even at standard difficulty) but battling the boss monsters is almost entirely too hard. There is a HUGE difficulty curve when fighting the boss monsters, to a point where I sometimes had to drop the difficulty to casual and still had to fight a boss 3-4 times to beat them. On standard difficulty, I’d typically give up after succumbing to the same boss repeatedly. Even in the later stages of the games the boss battles do not let up, but the normal battles are practically a cake walk.
In addition to your standard and magical attacks there is also a B.A.N.D special attack where you get additional powers depending on the character who initiates it. Some B.A.N.D attacks provide guaranteed hits, while others increase the damage of your magical attacks. On the left-hand side of the screen there is a bar with three levels that fills while you battle your way through the enemies. Each level increases the longevity that the B.A.N.D lasts, so it’s almost always preferable to save these special attacks for the boss battles. Yuma also has the ability to turn into the Shining Dragon who can release devastating attacks, however if your magic points drop too low the dragon goes into a berserker attack and will throw damage at friends and enemies alike. This is never good, so when playing as the Shining Dragon it’s key to turn back into Yuma before losing control.
Graphically the game is beautiful, and if anime or JRPG’s are your thing you will definitely appreciate the update to the original graphics. The graphics do stick closely to the standard JRPG tropes of ridiculously large weapons and warriors in short skirts, etc. so it looks like many of the other JRPGs on the market today. That’s not necessarily bad, it has just worn out its originality over the years. The sound can get extremely repetitive as well, especially in battle where your characters repeat the same catch phrases over and over again. Once again, that’s not to say that the sound is bad, but it gets old quickly. There are some other technical idiosyncrasies that were also particularly jarring. For example, if Yuma is killed in combat, you can run back to town with whichever character has taken over the “leader” role, but the minute you enter town, Yuma reappears as the controlling character. I get that he’s the main character and it doesn’t make much sense for the other characters to run around asking for quests, but his sudden reappearance even though you know he’s dead takes some getting used to.
So, is Shining Resonance Refrain a game that made me take another look at JRPGs? Well, yes and no if I’m being completely honest. It’s around 30+ hours for the main story and side quests and I’ll admit that the more time I spent with the game the more I enjoyed it. After about an hour of my mental block on JRPG games in general, I was able to get into the groove of things and power my way through it. That being said, I still felt the story was a little bit ridiculous and some of the characters really started to grate on my nerves. Even the main character Yuma tended to be a bit too wimpy for me. He can turn himself into the mightiest of dragons but doesn’t know if he can handle it, I often had the feeling that he should get over himself and embrace this incredible power. In the end, I really did enjoy it, once I overlooked a lot of it, and it actually did put me in the mood to go back and try one of the Final Fantasy games. I can’t say that Shining Resonance Refrain converted me to a diehard JRPG fan, but it certainly made me want to give them another try and that is a win in my book.
What I liked: Unique Characters, General feel of combat
What I liked less: Inconsistent difficulty, Repetitive phrases and sound effects
Shining Resonance Refrain has you take on the role of a young man named Yuma who has been held captive and experimented on by the main antagonists of the game, the Lombardian Empire. Yuma possesses the soul of the Shining Dragon, the most powerful dragon in the land of Alfheim. The Lombardian Empire is attempting to gather all the souls of the long-forgotten dragons in an effort to break a stalemate between the waring countries of Astoria and the Lombardian Empire. The only thing standing in their way are Yuma, his dragon soul and a powerful set of weapons known as the Armonics.
Quests and exploration are key to moving the story along, with the main quests involving attempts to hinder the Lombardian Empire’s search for the remaining dragon souls. There are also side quests that help you earn money and experience for your characters. The quests are either your typical fetch type quests or the type where you go to this area, fight this major boss, and then return to the castle. The world is broken up into much smaller zones, representing numerous landmarks on the map. Traveling to a particular spot on the map means going from zone to zone until you reach your final destination. The zones are very small, so traveling between them isn’t a huge problem, but not being able to use fast-travel between the zones you have already explored means you will spend a lot of time going back and forth between your castle and your next quest. It isn’t a huge deal breaker in the game, but the areas aren’t always very interesting, and going back and forth amongst the same areas over and over can get old the further you get in the game.
Combat is a mixed bag as well. During your quests, you will encounter various creatures wandering the zones. The battles take place in real time and each character has a set of action points that are used for physical attacks and magic points used for your special abilities and “breaker” moves. As your character levels up, you gain access to different magical attacks, which you can swap out as you choose, but most of the time your battles are simply button mashing your way through them with little strategy involved. The battles are also extremely inconsistent, as battling the various creatures is almost too easy (even at standard difficulty) but battling the boss monsters is almost entirely too hard. There is a HUGE difficulty curve when fighting the boss monsters, to a point where I sometimes had to drop the difficulty to casual and still had to fight a boss 3-4 times to beat them. On standard difficulty, I’d typically give up after succumbing to the same boss repeatedly. Even in the later stages of the games the boss battles do not let up, but the normal battles are practically a cake walk.
In addition to your standard and magical attacks there is also a B.A.N.D special attack where you get additional powers depending on the character who initiates it. Some B.A.N.D attacks provide guaranteed hits, while others increase the damage of your magical attacks. On the left-hand side of the screen there is a bar with three levels that fills while you battle your way through the enemies. Each level increases the longevity that the B.A.N.D lasts, so it’s almost always preferable to save these special attacks for the boss battles. Yuma also has the ability to turn into the Shining Dragon who can release devastating attacks, however if your magic points drop too low the dragon goes into a berserker attack and will throw damage at friends and enemies alike. This is never good, so when playing as the Shining Dragon it’s key to turn back into Yuma before losing control.
Graphically the game is beautiful, and if anime or JRPG’s are your thing you will definitely appreciate the update to the original graphics. The graphics do stick closely to the standard JRPG tropes of ridiculously large weapons and warriors in short skirts, etc. so it looks like many of the other JRPGs on the market today. That’s not necessarily bad, it has just worn out its originality over the years. The sound can get extremely repetitive as well, especially in battle where your characters repeat the same catch phrases over and over again. Once again, that’s not to say that the sound is bad, but it gets old quickly. There are some other technical idiosyncrasies that were also particularly jarring. For example, if Yuma is killed in combat, you can run back to town with whichever character has taken over the “leader” role, but the minute you enter town, Yuma reappears as the controlling character. I get that he’s the main character and it doesn’t make much sense for the other characters to run around asking for quests, but his sudden reappearance even though you know he’s dead takes some getting used to.
So, is Shining Resonance Refrain a game that made me take another look at JRPGs? Well, yes and no if I’m being completely honest. It’s around 30+ hours for the main story and side quests and I’ll admit that the more time I spent with the game the more I enjoyed it. After about an hour of my mental block on JRPG games in general, I was able to get into the groove of things and power my way through it. That being said, I still felt the story was a little bit ridiculous and some of the characters really started to grate on my nerves. Even the main character Yuma tended to be a bit too wimpy for me. He can turn himself into the mightiest of dragons but doesn’t know if he can handle it, I often had the feeling that he should get over himself and embrace this incredible power. In the end, I really did enjoy it, once I overlooked a lot of it, and it actually did put me in the mood to go back and try one of the Final Fantasy games. I can’t say that Shining Resonance Refrain converted me to a diehard JRPG fan, but it certainly made me want to give them another try and that is a win in my book.
What I liked: Unique Characters, General feel of combat
What I liked less: Inconsistent difficulty, Repetitive phrases and sound effects
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Oct 3, 2017
Plot Holes Galore (1 more)
Lack of Character Motivations
A Disappointing Sequel
Contains spoilers, click to show
You can look at this movie from two different perspectives. If you choose to see it as a dumb, switch-your-brain-off spy movie and are only going for the batshit insane action scenes, then you will have a good time. If you are looking for a decent comic book movie that serves as a sequel to the first movie and sets up a potential future franchise, then you will probably leave feeling similar to how I did, pretty disappointed.
The first movie was released with no hype behind it and for most people was a pleasant surprise. This film has a lot more to live up to and unfortunately it doesn't quite get there. Although the movie does feel like a sequel, it's not the worst sequel I've ever seen and it's not the worst sequel released this year.
Julianne Moore plays the antagonist in the movie and whilst her motivations for what she was doing were questionable, you could tell she was having fun with the character and it was a fun performance to watch. The action scenes were as fast paced and as fun as you would want them to be and although they do feel cartoony, there are a few crazy set pieces that you can’t help but grin at.
This movie also introduces the Statesman, an American version of the Kingsman who work out of a whisky factory rather than a tailor’s shop. Jeff Bridges and Halle Berry don’t get much screen time, which is fine, but Channing Tatum is hardly in the movie at all, despite appearing on a lot of the marketing for the film. I think he is onscreen in Hateful Eight for longer than he is in this.
Ok, spoiler time. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, don’t read on past this point. I mean if you have seen any of the trailers for the movie then you already know that they have brought Colin Firth back from the dead.
The explanation for this is sort of anti-climactic. Essentially, The Statesman have came up with a cure to gunshot wounds to the head and any other fatal wound that you may sustain, the process involves wrapping the wound in a gel strip and then inflating it with two syringes. Sure, you can argue this is a heightened reality where crazy stuff like this is entirely possible, but my problem with it, is that it immediately lowers all of the stakes. If anyone can be brought back from the dead, then how is there any peril left for the characters in the franchise?
After this whole revelation, they kill off Merlin, the character played by Mark Strong. His death is really pathetic and something that could have easily been avoided. Eggsy accidentally steps on a landmine, (even though they specifically point out that they are using a minesweeper,) then Merlin sprays the mine with a freeze gel so that Eggsy can step off of the mine and Merlin takes his place, then he distracts some guards and gets blown up. What I’m left wondering is the limit of what can be fixed with the regeneration strip. Surely if a bullet to the head can be walked off, then getting blown up by a landmine is fair game? Could they not have tried piecing him together like a jigsaw a wrapping him in the magic gel strips? I guess they could bring him back in the next movie and I’m sure if they do, we will know when the first trailer for Kingsman 3 is released.
Overall this isn’t a bad movie, it’s just disappointing. There are some entertaining action scenes, but rubbish dialogue and ridiculous plot elements make this inferior to the first Kingsman movie and pretty mediocre overall.
The first movie was released with no hype behind it and for most people was a pleasant surprise. This film has a lot more to live up to and unfortunately it doesn't quite get there. Although the movie does feel like a sequel, it's not the worst sequel I've ever seen and it's not the worst sequel released this year.
Julianne Moore plays the antagonist in the movie and whilst her motivations for what she was doing were questionable, you could tell she was having fun with the character and it was a fun performance to watch. The action scenes were as fast paced and as fun as you would want them to be and although they do feel cartoony, there are a few crazy set pieces that you can’t help but grin at.
This movie also introduces the Statesman, an American version of the Kingsman who work out of a whisky factory rather than a tailor’s shop. Jeff Bridges and Halle Berry don’t get much screen time, which is fine, but Channing Tatum is hardly in the movie at all, despite appearing on a lot of the marketing for the film. I think he is onscreen in Hateful Eight for longer than he is in this.
Ok, spoiler time. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, don’t read on past this point. I mean if you have seen any of the trailers for the movie then you already know that they have brought Colin Firth back from the dead.
The explanation for this is sort of anti-climactic. Essentially, The Statesman have came up with a cure to gunshot wounds to the head and any other fatal wound that you may sustain, the process involves wrapping the wound in a gel strip and then inflating it with two syringes. Sure, you can argue this is a heightened reality where crazy stuff like this is entirely possible, but my problem with it, is that it immediately lowers all of the stakes. If anyone can be brought back from the dead, then how is there any peril left for the characters in the franchise?
After this whole revelation, they kill off Merlin, the character played by Mark Strong. His death is really pathetic and something that could have easily been avoided. Eggsy accidentally steps on a landmine, (even though they specifically point out that they are using a minesweeper,) then Merlin sprays the mine with a freeze gel so that Eggsy can step off of the mine and Merlin takes his place, then he distracts some guards and gets blown up. What I’m left wondering is the limit of what can be fixed with the regeneration strip. Surely if a bullet to the head can be walked off, then getting blown up by a landmine is fair game? Could they not have tried piecing him together like a jigsaw a wrapping him in the magic gel strips? I guess they could bring him back in the next movie and I’m sure if they do, we will know when the first trailer for Kingsman 3 is released.
Overall this isn’t a bad movie, it’s just disappointing. There are some entertaining action scenes, but rubbish dialogue and ridiculous plot elements make this inferior to the first Kingsman movie and pretty mediocre overall.
Photo Lab: pics art filters
Photo & Video and Entertainment
4.0
Rate It
App
Photo Lab - Photo Fun Generator in your pocket with over 80 million downloads! Photo Lab contains...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Assistant (2020) in Movies
May 24, 2020
Julia Garner's performance (1 more)
The tension that manages to be created through a portrayal of the mundane
The movie seems to have a lot of haters on IMDB (a rating at the time of writing of 5.9)... but I refuse to follow "the pack" on this one... I thought it was great. It manages to make the mundane incredibly tense. This is this first (semi-)fictional feature from documentary-maker Kitty Green.... and in my book she does a knock-out job.
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
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.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Vacation without Aggravation.”
The “Green Book” was a handbook (now, thankfully, out of print) for blacks travelling in the southern states of the US , who want to stay in or dine in places they will be welcomed rather than abused. It is of course 1962 and Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General has racial equality strongly in his firing line.
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 8, 2021
More Fun Than I Expected
It is almost an effort in futility to review a movie such as THE SUICIDE SQUAD, for most folks fall into 1 of 2 camps:
1). Are a DC (or Comic Book Movie) Fan, and will go see this no matter what.
2). Are not of fan of the darker DCEU movies (as compared to the MCU films) and might have checked out the first SUICIDE SQUAD, but have no intention to watch this one.
This review is for the folks in the 2nd camp - for THE SUICIDE SQUAD is a fun summer action flick with silliness, action, humor and HEART at it’s core.
Directed by James Gunn (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY), THE SUICIDE SQUAD starts out like the first SUICIDE SQUAD film (and most of the DCEU films) - dark, gritty and intense - with a new pack of anti-heroes joining in on a fight that absolutely cements this team as THE SUICIDE SQUAD.
After that, the film makes an interesting adjustment, actually giving the audience anti-heroes that you can root for with just enough of a balance between the dark grittiness that one has come to expect from a DCEU film with a bit more humane touch that really is the hallmark of the MCU.
And, under the Direction of James Gunn, this film finds that balance very, very well.
Gunn, of course, knows how to make these films - his balance of action and character moments is accurate, his action sequences are well plotted and choreographed (no need for “shaky cam” to hide the faults) and he populates this Suicide Squad with some memorable characters.
Margot Robbie, of course, is in another stratosphere in her portrayal of Harley Quinn. This is the 3rd film that Robbie stars as Quinn and she has this part down pat. The problem with the other 2 films that she starred in as Quinn (2016’s SUICIDE SQUAD and 2020’s BIRDS OF PREY) is that she was SO GOOD in those films, that everyone else paled in comparison, but in this film, she has some strong actors/characters to play off of, and this benefits the movie.
Starting with Idris Elba as Bloodsport the “Leader” of the Squad (in essence, replacing Will Smith) and this is a smart move for Elba has the commanding presence of a Leader with that sense of foreboding that he might not be such a good guy underneath - a quality that I just didn’t buy from Smith in the first movie.
Joining Elba as characters that were interesting and strong were RatCatcher 1 (Taiki Waititi - in an extended cameo) and RatCatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Savant (Michael Rooker), freedom fighter Sol Soria (Sonya Braga), Thinker (Peter Capaldi) and the “Groot” of this piece, King Shark (Sylvester Stallone).
Oh…and special notice needs to be made of the character of Polka Dot Man (David Dastmalchian). Director Gunn has stated he wanted to find the dumbest villain in the DCEU and make him into one of the heroes of this piece. He found him in Polka Dot Man and is played with great pathos by Dastmalchian.
Fairing less well is the great Viola Davis as the hard-nosed Amanda Waller who seems to be still acting in the gritty, dark style of the first SUICIDE SQUAD film, so misses out on some of the fun of this film as well as Joel Kinneman as Colonel Rick Flagg (the military leader of the group). I really wasn’t invested in Flagg (or Kinneman’s portrayal of Flagg) in the first film - and I am not in this one either. He just isn’t at nearly the same level of performance as the others listed above.
Also…a note about John Cena (and his character PeaceMaker). This is the 2nd 2021 Summer Blockbuster Action flick that I have seen Cena in (following his turn in F9) and in both these films I found his performance to be “flat”. It just didn’t fill the screen, nor does he have enough charisma (a la The Rock) to charm his way through. I was bored by him in this film (as well as in F9).
But…this is a James Gunn film - and he doesn’t spend much time with the characters/actors that don’t really work, but rather, spends his camera time on the ones that do - and the over-the-top action sequences (and villain) that are filmed with a slight grin and a wink-in-the-eye.
It’s a much needed shot-in-the-arm for DCEU films, but - I’m afraid - it might be too little too late, as most folks have already tuned out the DCEU for being “too dark”. Which is too bad, for this is the fun summer blockbuster film action and comic book fans have been looking for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
1). Are a DC (or Comic Book Movie) Fan, and will go see this no matter what.
2). Are not of fan of the darker DCEU movies (as compared to the MCU films) and might have checked out the first SUICIDE SQUAD, but have no intention to watch this one.
This review is for the folks in the 2nd camp - for THE SUICIDE SQUAD is a fun summer action flick with silliness, action, humor and HEART at it’s core.
Directed by James Gunn (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY), THE SUICIDE SQUAD starts out like the first SUICIDE SQUAD film (and most of the DCEU films) - dark, gritty and intense - with a new pack of anti-heroes joining in on a fight that absolutely cements this team as THE SUICIDE SQUAD.
After that, the film makes an interesting adjustment, actually giving the audience anti-heroes that you can root for with just enough of a balance between the dark grittiness that one has come to expect from a DCEU film with a bit more humane touch that really is the hallmark of the MCU.
And, under the Direction of James Gunn, this film finds that balance very, very well.
Gunn, of course, knows how to make these films - his balance of action and character moments is accurate, his action sequences are well plotted and choreographed (no need for “shaky cam” to hide the faults) and he populates this Suicide Squad with some memorable characters.
Margot Robbie, of course, is in another stratosphere in her portrayal of Harley Quinn. This is the 3rd film that Robbie stars as Quinn and she has this part down pat. The problem with the other 2 films that she starred in as Quinn (2016’s SUICIDE SQUAD and 2020’s BIRDS OF PREY) is that she was SO GOOD in those films, that everyone else paled in comparison, but in this film, she has some strong actors/characters to play off of, and this benefits the movie.
Starting with Idris Elba as Bloodsport the “Leader” of the Squad (in essence, replacing Will Smith) and this is a smart move for Elba has the commanding presence of a Leader with that sense of foreboding that he might not be such a good guy underneath - a quality that I just didn’t buy from Smith in the first movie.
Joining Elba as characters that were interesting and strong were RatCatcher 1 (Taiki Waititi - in an extended cameo) and RatCatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Savant (Michael Rooker), freedom fighter Sol Soria (Sonya Braga), Thinker (Peter Capaldi) and the “Groot” of this piece, King Shark (Sylvester Stallone).
Oh…and special notice needs to be made of the character of Polka Dot Man (David Dastmalchian). Director Gunn has stated he wanted to find the dumbest villain in the DCEU and make him into one of the heroes of this piece. He found him in Polka Dot Man and is played with great pathos by Dastmalchian.
Fairing less well is the great Viola Davis as the hard-nosed Amanda Waller who seems to be still acting in the gritty, dark style of the first SUICIDE SQUAD film, so misses out on some of the fun of this film as well as Joel Kinneman as Colonel Rick Flagg (the military leader of the group). I really wasn’t invested in Flagg (or Kinneman’s portrayal of Flagg) in the first film - and I am not in this one either. He just isn’t at nearly the same level of performance as the others listed above.
Also…a note about John Cena (and his character PeaceMaker). This is the 2nd 2021 Summer Blockbuster Action flick that I have seen Cena in (following his turn in F9) and in both these films I found his performance to be “flat”. It just didn’t fill the screen, nor does he have enough charisma (a la The Rock) to charm his way through. I was bored by him in this film (as well as in F9).
But…this is a James Gunn film - and he doesn’t spend much time with the characters/actors that don’t really work, but rather, spends his camera time on the ones that do - and the over-the-top action sequences (and villain) that are filmed with a slight grin and a wink-in-the-eye.
It’s a much needed shot-in-the-arm for DCEU films, but - I’m afraid - it might be too little too late, as most folks have already tuned out the DCEU for being “too dark”. Which is too bad, for this is the fun summer blockbuster film action and comic book fans have been looking for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)