Search
Search results
Chinagram - Chinese Writing
Education and Reference
App
With Chinagram you can approach Chinese by discovering the meaning and origin of 300 of this...
iWay GPS Navigation for iPad - Turn by turn voice guidance with offline mode
Navigation and Travel
App
iWay GPS Navigation turns your iPad into a voice-guided GPS navigation system with turn-by-turn...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 21 Bridges (2019) in Movies
Sep 22, 2020
Direction and Lead Performances elevate a "so-so" script
The world lost a tremendous talent when 44 year old Chadwick Boseman lost his battle with cancer. Whether it was as Jackie Robinson in 42, Thurgood Marshall in THURGOOD or as T'Challa/Black Panther in the Marvel movies, Boseman's charm and charisma lept off the screen and drew you into whatever project he is in.
This charm and charisma is very much in evidence in the by-the-book cops chasing robbers action flick 21 BRIDGES. As the cop chasing "the fugitive", Boseman elevates the proceedings to a level above what this average script had to offer.
Set in NYC, 21 BRIDGES tells the tale of Detective Andre Davis (Bozeman) who must chase down a couple of thieves - and cop killers - before they can escape New York. Told in one night, Davis makes the call to close the "21 Bridges" of the island of Manhattan so the bad guys are stuck on the island.
And...that's the first disappointment with this film, it doesn't do anything with that premise. Do the bad guys try to escape on one of those "21 Bridges"? Nope. The bridges are never really mentioned again...so why call this film "21 Bridges"?
What does work is Boseman's performance. His Davis is competent, honest, smart and earnest and you are drawn into his work. As is the work of the person who is thrust into the action as his partner, Vice Cop Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller). You might roll your eyes when you hear Miller's name for her early career was more about being on the tabloid pages than it was about being on the screen, but she has morphed herself - and her career - into something quite interesting through turns in films like FOXCATCHER and AMERICAN SNIPER and she is as equally interesting as Bozeman in this film. The 2 make a good pair.
The rest of the supporting cast - Taylor Kitsch, Keith David and the great J.K. Simmons - are solid, if not spectacular. But there are 2 standouts. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir in STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9) is interesting as the "money launderer" and Stephan James (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK) is just as charming and charismatic as Bozeman as one of the the thieves on the run. If you are looking for a young, charismatic actor to fill the hole created by Bozeman's death, James could very well fit the bill.
I've mentioned that the script by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is nothing special, but what is special is the Direction by Brian Kirk (a TV Director of such shows as GAME OF THRONES and LUTHER). This is his Major Motion Picture debut (as far as I could tell) and there were some VERY interesting shots and some taught, tense moments. He'll be a director to watch in the future.
While nothing too special, 21 BRIDGES is better than "good enough" - a cops 'n robbers film that will hold your interest for the relatively quick 1 hour and 39 minute running time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This charm and charisma is very much in evidence in the by-the-book cops chasing robbers action flick 21 BRIDGES. As the cop chasing "the fugitive", Boseman elevates the proceedings to a level above what this average script had to offer.
Set in NYC, 21 BRIDGES tells the tale of Detective Andre Davis (Bozeman) who must chase down a couple of thieves - and cop killers - before they can escape New York. Told in one night, Davis makes the call to close the "21 Bridges" of the island of Manhattan so the bad guys are stuck on the island.
And...that's the first disappointment with this film, it doesn't do anything with that premise. Do the bad guys try to escape on one of those "21 Bridges"? Nope. The bridges are never really mentioned again...so why call this film "21 Bridges"?
What does work is Boseman's performance. His Davis is competent, honest, smart and earnest and you are drawn into his work. As is the work of the person who is thrust into the action as his partner, Vice Cop Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller). You might roll your eyes when you hear Miller's name for her early career was more about being on the tabloid pages than it was about being on the screen, but she has morphed herself - and her career - into something quite interesting through turns in films like FOXCATCHER and AMERICAN SNIPER and she is as equally interesting as Bozeman in this film. The 2 make a good pair.
The rest of the supporting cast - Taylor Kitsch, Keith David and the great J.K. Simmons - are solid, if not spectacular. But there are 2 standouts. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir in STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9) is interesting as the "money launderer" and Stephan James (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK) is just as charming and charismatic as Bozeman as one of the the thieves on the run. If you are looking for a young, charismatic actor to fill the hole created by Bozeman's death, James could very well fit the bill.
I've mentioned that the script by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is nothing special, but what is special is the Direction by Brian Kirk (a TV Director of such shows as GAME OF THRONES and LUTHER). This is his Major Motion Picture debut (as far as I could tell) and there were some VERY interesting shots and some taught, tense moments. He'll be a director to watch in the future.
While nothing too special, 21 BRIDGES is better than "good enough" - a cops 'n robbers film that will hold your interest for the relatively quick 1 hour and 39 minute running time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
"i'd like to purchase some of your finest beer please"
Shout "Shazam!" into the sky and you're struck by a bolt of lightning from the heavens; blessed with the wisdom of Solomon, the strength of Hercules, the stamina of Atlas, the power of Zeus, the courage of Achilles and the speed of Mercury. Instantly elevated from whatever you were into your peak self; reborn with a crack of thunder, a flash of light and a cloud of smoke. It's a wonderfully novel and simple idea for a comic book character. Something that allows for a spectacular hero moment right before each conflict or feat; an epic bit of imagery to light up the night sky and electrify the frame. This transformation also perfectly captures the spirit of both this film and it's hero; a belief in the idea that even the most forgotten, marginalized and seemingly powerless person can change the world.
Shazam! distinguishes itself as DC's first true crack at a comedy; also it's lightest and most modest effort yet. There's a really nice commitment to the lofty, somewhat ridiculously mythological source material here. There's little liberty taken with Shazam's campy world of wizards, demons and magic; the attitude towards these elements can best be described as self-aware without being self-conscious. The jokes almost all land and there's charm oozing out of every frame. Loads of heart, tons of humor and a true fidelity to childhood joy make this such a uniquely enjoyable flick; and an impressively confident approach to a hero that soars due to it's big personality and earnest attitude.
Our hero's journey here boils down to a kid learning to care about a world that has never bothered to care about him. Abandoned as a child and shuttled through the foster system; the explanation and depiction of Billy Batson's unenviable situation is irreverent and laced with sarcasm, true to how teens often confront traumas that imply vulnerability. The film allows these kids to be kids; meaning they're impulsive and ill-equipped for the situation they're in; and often crude and frustratingly ignorant to a seemingly obvious truth. The premise lends itself to a close look at responsibility and purpose; basically a feature length look at a lost kid reclaiming his identity and finding a family. The point at which Billy truly becomes a hero with something to fight for is powerful; a simple but big-hearted affirmation of the importance of connection and love, especially to a kid who's never allowed himself to know either.
Superhero stories can impart lessons in a variety of ways. Both on the page and on the screen; there's a wide array of films that all excel in their own specific way; shaping themselves in the image of their hero, and what he/she means to readers around the world. Shazam! distinguishes itself spectacularly as a film about what constitutes a family, and how that family reflects who we are. There's a powerful yearning in Billy for a connection; someone or something to fight for. A desperate desire for love and support; to feel like a part of something in some way. There's a meaningful, deeply human core to that concept; something universal and immediately affecting. Shazam! understands this from the start; setting aside the punchsplosians and skybeams for a moment, to remind us that sometimes a kid looking for his mom can be as compelling than the threat of planetary destruction. So bring on Joker, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984 and whatever else DC has in it's chaotic, ever-changing slate of planned superhero flicks; they're on a roll right now.
Shazam! distinguishes itself as DC's first true crack at a comedy; also it's lightest and most modest effort yet. There's a really nice commitment to the lofty, somewhat ridiculously mythological source material here. There's little liberty taken with Shazam's campy world of wizards, demons and magic; the attitude towards these elements can best be described as self-aware without being self-conscious. The jokes almost all land and there's charm oozing out of every frame. Loads of heart, tons of humor and a true fidelity to childhood joy make this such a uniquely enjoyable flick; and an impressively confident approach to a hero that soars due to it's big personality and earnest attitude.
Our hero's journey here boils down to a kid learning to care about a world that has never bothered to care about him. Abandoned as a child and shuttled through the foster system; the explanation and depiction of Billy Batson's unenviable situation is irreverent and laced with sarcasm, true to how teens often confront traumas that imply vulnerability. The film allows these kids to be kids; meaning they're impulsive and ill-equipped for the situation they're in; and often crude and frustratingly ignorant to a seemingly obvious truth. The premise lends itself to a close look at responsibility and purpose; basically a feature length look at a lost kid reclaiming his identity and finding a family. The point at which Billy truly becomes a hero with something to fight for is powerful; a simple but big-hearted affirmation of the importance of connection and love, especially to a kid who's never allowed himself to know either.
Superhero stories can impart lessons in a variety of ways. Both on the page and on the screen; there's a wide array of films that all excel in their own specific way; shaping themselves in the image of their hero, and what he/she means to readers around the world. Shazam! distinguishes itself spectacularly as a film about what constitutes a family, and how that family reflects who we are. There's a powerful yearning in Billy for a connection; someone or something to fight for. A desperate desire for love and support; to feel like a part of something in some way. There's a meaningful, deeply human core to that concept; something universal and immediately affecting. Shazam! understands this from the start; setting aside the punchsplosians and skybeams for a moment, to remind us that sometimes a kid looking for his mom can be as compelling than the threat of planetary destruction. So bring on Joker, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984 and whatever else DC has in it's chaotic, ever-changing slate of planned superhero flicks; they're on a roll right now.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Iron Man (2008) in Movies
May 9, 2019
"I am iron man"
Marking the commencement of Marvel Cinematic Universe, catapulting Robert Downey Jr. into the league of Hollywood's biggest stars & also announcing the arrival of Marvel Studios into motion picture filmmaking for it is their first fully-financed project, Iron Man not only succeeds as a quality blend of style & substance but is also amongst the best origin stories cinema has come up with for a comic book superhero.
Iron Man tells the story of genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist Tony Stark who, while on his tour to war-torn Afghanistan for the demonstration of his new weaponry to United States military, is ambushed & taken hostage by a terrorist group. Working with another captive, he designs an exoskeleton to get out from there & after returning to US further refines his design. The plot covers the change his captivity brings in his entire personality.
Stylishly directed by Jon Favreau, Iron Man aims for the same grounded approach that Christopher Nolan applied in Batman Begins & succeeds amazingly well for the most part. The screenplay is brimming with energy, wit & charm, and is brilliantly written & narrated. Production design provides it a very modern feel, Camerawork is vibrantly carried out, Editing briskly paces the whole story which also benefits from Ramin Djawadi's fitting score as well as clever use of existing songs.
Coming to the acting department, Iron Man features a star-studded cast in Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges & Terrence Howard but the film belongs to Downey Jr. who blazes brightly in red n gold with a performance that's absolutely fantastic, effortlessly charismatic & downright polished. Overshadowing the input of the rest & fitting the suit perfectly, this is one role that couldn't have gone to a better actor & how this gifted talent renders Tony Stark on screen is a further proof of that.
On an overall scale, Iron Man has enough power in it to please both fans of the comics as well as newcomers. Sure its third act isn't as impressive as the first two but the positives eclipse the negatives by a huge margin. Balancing its storytelling aspects with big budget extravaganza to triumph as a work of quality in the eyes of viewers n critics alike, Iron Man is a highly refreshing, wildly entertaining & largely satisfying crowd-pleaser that's hugely responsible for the foundation on which Marvel Studios stands today. Highly recommended.
Iron Man tells the story of genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist Tony Stark who, while on his tour to war-torn Afghanistan for the demonstration of his new weaponry to United States military, is ambushed & taken hostage by a terrorist group. Working with another captive, he designs an exoskeleton to get out from there & after returning to US further refines his design. The plot covers the change his captivity brings in his entire personality.
Stylishly directed by Jon Favreau, Iron Man aims for the same grounded approach that Christopher Nolan applied in Batman Begins & succeeds amazingly well for the most part. The screenplay is brimming with energy, wit & charm, and is brilliantly written & narrated. Production design provides it a very modern feel, Camerawork is vibrantly carried out, Editing briskly paces the whole story which also benefits from Ramin Djawadi's fitting score as well as clever use of existing songs.
Coming to the acting department, Iron Man features a star-studded cast in Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges & Terrence Howard but the film belongs to Downey Jr. who blazes brightly in red n gold with a performance that's absolutely fantastic, effortlessly charismatic & downright polished. Overshadowing the input of the rest & fitting the suit perfectly, this is one role that couldn't have gone to a better actor & how this gifted talent renders Tony Stark on screen is a further proof of that.
On an overall scale, Iron Man has enough power in it to please both fans of the comics as well as newcomers. Sure its third act isn't as impressive as the first two but the positives eclipse the negatives by a huge margin. Balancing its storytelling aspects with big budget extravaganza to triumph as a work of quality in the eyes of viewers n critics alike, Iron Man is a highly refreshing, wildly entertaining & largely satisfying crowd-pleaser that's hugely responsible for the foundation on which Marvel Studios stands today. Highly recommended.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) in Movies
Feb 8, 2020 (Updated Feb 12, 2020)
SWING BATTER BATTER BATTER!
Birds Of Prey is yet another win for the DC universe and a huge step up from one of the most hated films of all time Suicide Squad. Right off the bat Birds Of Prey is an absolute blast and what you will notice immediately is just the sheer amount of explosive energy it has has to offer. Its this energy that constantly gives you the feeling of being on a rollar coaster travelling through a circus of pure amusement, the visuals are loud, the colour pallet is striking and vibrant, the sound is immersive/atmospheric and the soundtrack brings everything together beautify using old classic songs that have been remixed with a modern day kick which help to really give the film pace. Fight scenes are really fun, violent and also well choreographed with a nice crunch to all the impacts too. Infact fights do all feel very John Wick inspired becoming more of a beautifully synchronised dance routine flowing perfectly like the ice skating scenes from itonya rather than using messy quick cuts. BOP also seemingly borrows from Deadpool too as far as plot, humour and mature content go but im happy to report it works really well and manages to feel much more at home/gritty and adult here and less forced/childish than it is in Deadpool in my opinion. Margot robbie shines as Harley Quinn even more so than she did in suicide squad, she really has got this character down to a T now and its so so satisfying to see her own the screen as her again as she struggles to find her independence and make a name for herself. Ewan Mcgregor is also magnificent in a part that he clearly enjoyed playing beacuse boy was he entertaining as hell as a guy thats almost an obsessive man child whose only feared and powerul because of his status and money. Hes also unpredictable with a spoilt brat like temper and the way the film shifts in tone when he becomes angry can be chilling especially when its mixed with such savage and brutal violence. Plot is fairly basic and not the most intresting but that doesnt matter here because the movie holds its own with the constant thrills/variety it provides and just like a looney tunes carton its such pure addictive madness that it will suck you right in and leave you with a chelsea smile from ear to ear. Possibly the most enjoyable and visually awsome comic book adaptations yet well worth seeing.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 25, 2019
Succeeds...mostly...thanks to the charm and charisma of Will Smith
Unnecessary...a money grab...what was Will Smith thinking...why would Disney do this?
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Triumph
Brutal. Spectacular. Emotional. These are just some of the adjectives you could use to describe Christopher Nolan’s latest film, Dunkirk. The director of Inception, The Dark Knight, Memento and Interstellar is one of the greatest film-makers working today and he raises the bar once again with this bleak tale from World War II.
With war, you have to respect the past whilst allowing modern-day film-goers to truly understand the brutality that ordinary people like you and I went through on a daily basis.
In May 1940, Germany had advanced into France, trapping Allied troops on the beaches of Dunkirk. Under air and ground cover from British and French forces, troops were slowly and methodically evacuated from the beach using not only military ships but civilian boats too. At the end of this incredible story of courage, 330,000 French, British, Belgian and Dutch soldiers were safely evacuated.
I found a quote the other day that said “Christopher Nolan is like Michael Bay for people who have ever read a book” and in Dunkirk that seems more apt than ever. Of course there are explosions, many of them, but they are interweaved with some incredible storytelling.
Split into three separate timelines, Dunkirk follows fisherman Mark Rylance as he sails to the beaches as part of the civilian rescue effort. On land we shadow a group of young soldiers desperately trying to get back home. Finally, the film flies alongside Tom Hardy’s brave Spitfire pilot as he tries his best to keep the beaches safe.
Each of the stories has something to offer but Mark Rylance’s performance is definitely the best, making his timeline the most interesting and often the most emotional. Addressing the elephant in the room, Harry Styles, is probably best at this part of the review – he’s excellent and in a much larger part than I had imagined.
In fact, all the performances are excellent, helped in part by Christopher Nolan’s incredible use of close-ups. This is a living, breathing war and as the audience, you feel as claustrophobic as the 400,000 men did waiting on that beach in 1940.
Moreover, the sound is just astonishing. I have never known a film use sound to such an extent to convey sheer terror. The score by Hans Zimmer, coupled with the deafening aircraft flying overhead and the rapid gunfire is incredibly harrowing and makes Dunkirk very hard to watch at times – despite its 12A certification.
Dunkirk is also a masterclass in practical effects. Nearly everything you see on screen was shot without the use of CGI and my goodness you can tell. We’re so used to seeing blockbusters filled to the brim with computer generated imagery that it’s easy to forget just how good practical effects can be.
Overall, Christopher Nolan has created a tasteful homage to a day that has been etched into the minds of generations of people. It would’ve been easy to create a film that focused on the action rather than the human details of this incredible story, but Nolan has managed to craft an absolute triumph. It’s one of the best films of the year and an absolute must-watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/23/dunkirk-review-a-triumph/
With war, you have to respect the past whilst allowing modern-day film-goers to truly understand the brutality that ordinary people like you and I went through on a daily basis.
In May 1940, Germany had advanced into France, trapping Allied troops on the beaches of Dunkirk. Under air and ground cover from British and French forces, troops were slowly and methodically evacuated from the beach using not only military ships but civilian boats too. At the end of this incredible story of courage, 330,000 French, British, Belgian and Dutch soldiers were safely evacuated.
I found a quote the other day that said “Christopher Nolan is like Michael Bay for people who have ever read a book” and in Dunkirk that seems more apt than ever. Of course there are explosions, many of them, but they are interweaved with some incredible storytelling.
Split into three separate timelines, Dunkirk follows fisherman Mark Rylance as he sails to the beaches as part of the civilian rescue effort. On land we shadow a group of young soldiers desperately trying to get back home. Finally, the film flies alongside Tom Hardy’s brave Spitfire pilot as he tries his best to keep the beaches safe.
Each of the stories has something to offer but Mark Rylance’s performance is definitely the best, making his timeline the most interesting and often the most emotional. Addressing the elephant in the room, Harry Styles, is probably best at this part of the review – he’s excellent and in a much larger part than I had imagined.
In fact, all the performances are excellent, helped in part by Christopher Nolan’s incredible use of close-ups. This is a living, breathing war and as the audience, you feel as claustrophobic as the 400,000 men did waiting on that beach in 1940.
Moreover, the sound is just astonishing. I have never known a film use sound to such an extent to convey sheer terror. The score by Hans Zimmer, coupled with the deafening aircraft flying overhead and the rapid gunfire is incredibly harrowing and makes Dunkirk very hard to watch at times – despite its 12A certification.
Dunkirk is also a masterclass in practical effects. Nearly everything you see on screen was shot without the use of CGI and my goodness you can tell. We’re so used to seeing blockbusters filled to the brim with computer generated imagery that it’s easy to forget just how good practical effects can be.
Overall, Christopher Nolan has created a tasteful homage to a day that has been etched into the minds of generations of people. It would’ve been easy to create a film that focused on the action rather than the human details of this incredible story, but Nolan has managed to craft an absolute triumph. It’s one of the best films of the year and an absolute must-watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/23/dunkirk-review-a-triumph/