Search
David McK (3207 KP) rated World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie Wars in Books
May 14, 2023
Audiobooks, I find, are a bit of a strange beast: some are good; some are terrible.
I think it all depends on the skill of the narrator, and how close they are to how the character 'sounds' in your head when you're reading a book: in audio (and televisual) form, after all, you are relying on someone else's characterisation.
That is where a unique - at least, I've never come across one quite like this before - hook comes in. Sure, I've listened to a few Graphic Audio's (essentially, a dramatization for the listeners) with a wide cast of characters (each performed by a different actor) before but I don't think I've ever come across one presented like this: essentially, as interviews with survivors of a global apocalypse, the World War Z(ed, not Zee - I'm British) of the title.
Forget the Brad Pitt starring movie of the same name: while it does take the occasional pointer from this, it's a very different beast indeed.
Instead, this is presented as Max Brooks - a survivor of the War - interviewing notable, key and even sometimes seemingly normal, mundane survivors of the fictional outbreak, in chronological order from the earliest inkling that something was wrong, through to the outbreak proper, the fall of society, the fight back against the hordes and the eventual reclamation of society.
I do have to say, however, that I felt that more than a few of the chapters 'sounded' the same (and I mean that in the style and tone of language used, not so much in the verbal intonation - although there is also an element of that in the audiobook), and that I did find myself 'zoning out' for periods of time. As I listened to the audiobook version, it also didn't help that one section would sound like a character was whispering (=sounds up full), and then the very next I would have to hurriedly turn the volume down if I didn't want to be deafened ...
I think it all depends on the skill of the narrator, and how close they are to how the character 'sounds' in your head when you're reading a book: in audio (and televisual) form, after all, you are relying on someone else's characterisation.
That is where a unique - at least, I've never come across one quite like this before - hook comes in. Sure, I've listened to a few Graphic Audio's (essentially, a dramatization for the listeners) with a wide cast of characters (each performed by a different actor) before but I don't think I've ever come across one presented like this: essentially, as interviews with survivors of a global apocalypse, the World War Z(ed, not Zee - I'm British) of the title.
Forget the Brad Pitt starring movie of the same name: while it does take the occasional pointer from this, it's a very different beast indeed.
Instead, this is presented as Max Brooks - a survivor of the War - interviewing notable, key and even sometimes seemingly normal, mundane survivors of the fictional outbreak, in chronological order from the earliest inkling that something was wrong, through to the outbreak proper, the fall of society, the fight back against the hordes and the eventual reclamation of society.
I do have to say, however, that I felt that more than a few of the chapters 'sounded' the same (and I mean that in the style and tone of language used, not so much in the verbal intonation - although there is also an element of that in the audiobook), and that I did find myself 'zoning out' for periods of time. As I listened to the audiobook version, it also didn't help that one section would sound like a character was whispering (=sounds up full), and then the very next I would have to hurriedly turn the volume down if I didn't want to be deafened ...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Tarantino makes good movies, I like them, but I don't love them. When everyone was raving about the OUATIH trailer I was sitting back going "that looks okay, but..." I wasn't sure I could see how they were going to mix the two strands of the story together, or why. After seeing it I'm still not sure.
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
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!
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated True Romance (1993) in Movies
May 30, 2018
I know people that hate this film, but I know far more that love it.
Contains spoilers, click to show
The film was written by Quentin Tarantino, and it really shows with the sharp dialogue and crazy plot. The film centres around Clarence (Christian Slater) who meets and marries Alabama (Patricia Arquette). After Clarence goes to get Alabama's belongings, through a series of mishaps, he ends up with suitcase of coke and they decide to sell it. This leads to a wild adventure involving drug dealers, police and movie executives.
The casting in this film is amazing with Hollywood greats turning up and each one adds something special to the film. But by far the best performance is by Brad Pitt as the roommate of Clarence's friend Dick. He is on screen for a total of about 5 minutes but steals every scene he is in. However every one of the characters in the film brings something special. The performances by Hollywood greats, including Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken and Gary Oldman all come so close to being over the top, but the incredible script and brilliant directing manage to hold back just enough to stop it going too far.
This film is a true masterpiece where everything just falls in to place. The film is not for the faint of heart though. There are very graphic scenes of violence. One particular scene involving a woman getting severely beaten. The perpetrator definitely gets his comeuppance though. While the violence is very graphic, as with most of Tarantino's films, it is very bloody but also portrayed in a realistic manor. This adds to the shock and also to bring you closer to the victims.
I cannot praise this film enough. It is one of the greats that has been overlooked by many including Hollywood. Almost all of the performances are worthy of Oscar nomination, as with the script. But this film was overlooked by all the major awards.
If you are a fan of Tarantino films, or films with a good cast and great story give this film a try. I know people that hate this film, but I know far more that love it.
The casting in this film is amazing with Hollywood greats turning up and each one adds something special to the film. But by far the best performance is by Brad Pitt as the roommate of Clarence's friend Dick. He is on screen for a total of about 5 minutes but steals every scene he is in. However every one of the characters in the film brings something special. The performances by Hollywood greats, including Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken and Gary Oldman all come so close to being over the top, but the incredible script and brilliant directing manage to hold back just enough to stop it going too far.
This film is a true masterpiece where everything just falls in to place. The film is not for the faint of heart though. There are very graphic scenes of violence. One particular scene involving a woman getting severely beaten. The perpetrator definitely gets his comeuppance though. While the violence is very graphic, as with most of Tarantino's films, it is very bloody but also portrayed in a realistic manor. This adds to the shock and also to bring you closer to the victims.
I cannot praise this film enough. It is one of the greats that has been overlooked by many including Hollywood. Almost all of the performances are worthy of Oscar nomination, as with the script. But this film was overlooked by all the major awards.
If you are a fan of Tarantino films, or films with a good cast and great story give this film a try. I know people that hate this film, but I know far more that love it.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 15, 2019
As real as a donut
once upon a timeinhollywood is slow paced, tight methodical, uplifting & intricately woven look into the life of a hollywood star in the late 60s. I have to say im not overly a big Tarantino fan (with Inglorious bastards & the hateful eight being my favourites of his) so I wasnt really that excited about seeing this but once I stopped being on edge waiting for something bad to happen & finally sat back letting the film pull me in I knew this wasnt the usual Tarantino movie & I found that strangely compelling. While slow 90% of the run time the film never drags or ever stops being interesting & fascinating. Characters just drip cool are all likeable well fleshed out & distinguishable with every performance absolutely killing it even people that arnt in it much. It just all feels very human, relatable, down to earth & real. Sets are crafted with such perfection & filled with so much painstaking detail that you would swear the film was actually shot in the 60s creating an atmosphere & believability like no other. Accompany that with a smooth soundtrack you have a movie that just pops with style constantly. While everyone does a fantastic job its brad pitt that owns the film, his character is so deep, inspirational & the true hero of the film. Overall I saw this film as a more chill ed out & about how every day life for us all most of the time is way more exciting, thrilling, full of drama & strange events day to day making our lives just as exciting & as watchable as going to the movies & if we all just stopped worrying/stressing for just a second about technology, love, being successful etc life would fall into place, be stress free, we would be healthier & happier. Masterfully filmed, inteligent, mature & well executed this is not only a true love letter to the art of film making but a tribute to movies & how inspiring they can be in general. So sit back enter the decade & relax it may all seem very anti violence at first but the violence does come with time & when it finally hits its shocking & nasty but it feels earned & perfectly timed.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 20, 2019
All style, too much substance
I'm a big Tarantino fan and I really wanted to like this film, but I'm afraid like The Hateful Eight before it, I just found it far too rambling and long winded.
Don't get me wrong, I get what he was trying to do here with the classic Hollywood era, I just think it has been poorly executed. Instead of going for 'all style, no substance', Tarantino appears to have gone for all style and too much substance. Visually this film looks stunning, the set design and the costumes look amazing. The cast are brilliant, there's some great supporting faces in this and truly marvellous turns from Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio. Honestly it's these two that kept my attention for the nearly 3 hour run time. The ideas are good and the dialogue is good, the problem is that there's just way too much of it. Every scene has been dragged out way past the point of enjoyment, and there are so many pointless scenes in this that could easily have been cut out without affecting the barely there plot. He could've at least replaced some of these dragged out scenes with more of a main plot, especially as the only thing interesting about this film was the small bits with the Mansons in it.
I'm starting to wonder if Tarantino is becoming a bit complacent. He's known for his dialogue, but this is just too much. Its worrying when a 3 hour film gets interesting 15 minutes towards the end, which is the only time we see any in depth violence. Had this film been cut by at least an hour, it would've actually been very good. It's just a shame it had to ramble on for so long.
I've marked this higher than I probably should, but only because there is a lot to appreciate in this film and some wonderful performances, it just should've been in a much shorter runtime. I havent seen The Hateful Eight since it was on at the cinema as I can't bear to put myself through it again, and I'm afraid to say it's the same for this.
Don't get me wrong, I get what he was trying to do here with the classic Hollywood era, I just think it has been poorly executed. Instead of going for 'all style, no substance', Tarantino appears to have gone for all style and too much substance. Visually this film looks stunning, the set design and the costumes look amazing. The cast are brilliant, there's some great supporting faces in this and truly marvellous turns from Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio. Honestly it's these two that kept my attention for the nearly 3 hour run time. The ideas are good and the dialogue is good, the problem is that there's just way too much of it. Every scene has been dragged out way past the point of enjoyment, and there are so many pointless scenes in this that could easily have been cut out without affecting the barely there plot. He could've at least replaced some of these dragged out scenes with more of a main plot, especially as the only thing interesting about this film was the small bits with the Mansons in it.
I'm starting to wonder if Tarantino is becoming a bit complacent. He's known for his dialogue, but this is just too much. Its worrying when a 3 hour film gets interesting 15 minutes towards the end, which is the only time we see any in depth violence. Had this film been cut by at least an hour, it would've actually been very good. It's just a shame it had to ramble on for so long.
I've marked this higher than I probably should, but only because there is a lot to appreciate in this film and some wonderful performances, it just should've been in a much shorter runtime. I havent seen The Hateful Eight since it was on at the cinema as I can't bear to put myself through it again, and I'm afraid to say it's the same for this.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Snatch (2001) in Movies
May 8, 2020
A Movie Carried By Brilliant Performances
In Snatch, three separate groups of characters revolve around a missing diamond.
Acting: 10
In a movie like this where the character list looks more like a laundry list, you have to count on a number of solid performances to carry the film from large to small. Every performance is on point here, right down to smaller showings from guys like Ade playing the role of Tyrone the overweight getaway driver. You get to see a guy like Brad Pitt step out of his comfort zone playing a gypsy boxer by the name of Mickey O’Neil. Meanwhile Benicio Del Toro absolutely crushes his role as gangster Franky Four Fingers. None of these characters succeed without the great actors behind them.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Each of the three groups of characters have no shortage of their share of problems in the film. The film grows and relies on conflict to keep it afloat. It’s a movie that keeps you guessing as you never know what’s going to happen next or who’s going to live to see the next scene. The conflict within ultimately gives you the motive to care about what’s happening to each of these guys.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 6
Pace: 8
Barring a couple of lulls, the movie moves at a consistent clip. There are occasions where things are happening too quickly and I wish they would slow down just a tad but, for the most part, the pace is on point. I was impressed by how quickly it moved while still managing to develop the plight of each character.
Plot: 6
Resolution: 8
Solid ending that could have been a tad better. I was hoping for a bit more closure. All things considered, it will do.
Overall: 87
Snatch kicks off with an original robbery and it’s off to the races from there. I can’t wait to watch it again to catch some of the things I might have missed. I can definitely see why the movie is beloved.
Acting: 10
In a movie like this where the character list looks more like a laundry list, you have to count on a number of solid performances to carry the film from large to small. Every performance is on point here, right down to smaller showings from guys like Ade playing the role of Tyrone the overweight getaway driver. You get to see a guy like Brad Pitt step out of his comfort zone playing a gypsy boxer by the name of Mickey O’Neil. Meanwhile Benicio Del Toro absolutely crushes his role as gangster Franky Four Fingers. None of these characters succeed without the great actors behind them.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Each of the three groups of characters have no shortage of their share of problems in the film. The film grows and relies on conflict to keep it afloat. It’s a movie that keeps you guessing as you never know what’s going to happen next or who’s going to live to see the next scene. The conflict within ultimately gives you the motive to care about what’s happening to each of these guys.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 6
Pace: 8
Barring a couple of lulls, the movie moves at a consistent clip. There are occasions where things are happening too quickly and I wish they would slow down just a tad but, for the most part, the pace is on point. I was impressed by how quickly it moved while still managing to develop the plight of each character.
Plot: 6
Resolution: 8
Solid ending that could have been a tad better. I was hoping for a bit more closure. All things considered, it will do.
Overall: 87
Snatch kicks off with an original robbery and it’s off to the races from there. I can’t wait to watch it again to catch some of the things I might have missed. I can definitely see why the movie is beloved.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Not since the film The War of the Roses has the silver screen portrayed marital discord in such as humorous and violent fashion as it does in Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
The film stars Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as the title characters who are approaching their sixth year of marriage, though Mr. Smith seems to be convinced it has only been five.
Tedium has set into their suburban lives, and the couple has entered counseling in an effort to help their lack of communication. The story of how they met and various aspects of their lives with one another paints the picture of how much the flame has dulled after such an explosive start for the couple.
As routine has their home lives have become, one thing that has not changed is their work. Unknown to each other, the Smiths are actually assassins for competing firms. Both Smiths are convinced that their spouse works in other fields and manage to complete most of their missions during the day or night under the guise of work for the cover careers.
Things change when both agents are assigned by their firms to a mission where they end up encountering each other from a distance. Unsure of whom the person they spotted is, they are ordered to eliminate the person in order to protect their cover.
This begins a rapid series of events that, as anyone who has seen the trailer will realize, the Smiths will figure out that the person they have been seeking is their very own spouse. While this destination is inevitable to the plot is not a surprise, the trip leading up to it, and the whirlwind of events that follows this discovery, is what really makes this film such an enjoyable ride.
Naturally when the two uncover their spouse’s true identity, the instincts of their professions as well as their pent up frustrations come out in an orgy of passion and violence that leaves a trail of devastation. The various encounters between the Smiths not only escalate on the violence scale, but due to issue such as pride, reputations, and betrayal, the objectivity and impersonal nature of their work are abandoned.
I think Shakespeare put it best when he said that “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”, as the scenes of Jane Smith unloading her pent up fury are almost as hysterical as the segments where John Smith takes his turn at the plate.
A prime example of the films ability to mix action and comedy to perfection is the classic dance scene where the two attempt to disarm one another in an effort to get the upper hand. Pitt and Jolie dance and exchanges barbs, as they keep the beat and discard the weapons they find, as they plot to gain the upper hand.
The film did lose a bit of its amazing momentum about a third of the way in, before regrouping and bringing the film to an action packed and very satisfying conclusion. The supporting work of Vince Vaughn is very funny, but sadly his presence is limited. The films works very well because the chemistry between the two leads is very strong, as are the action and humor sequences. Without a doubt one of the best movies of the summer and one not to be missed
The film stars Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as the title characters who are approaching their sixth year of marriage, though Mr. Smith seems to be convinced it has only been five.
Tedium has set into their suburban lives, and the couple has entered counseling in an effort to help their lack of communication. The story of how they met and various aspects of their lives with one another paints the picture of how much the flame has dulled after such an explosive start for the couple.
As routine has their home lives have become, one thing that has not changed is their work. Unknown to each other, the Smiths are actually assassins for competing firms. Both Smiths are convinced that their spouse works in other fields and manage to complete most of their missions during the day or night under the guise of work for the cover careers.
Things change when both agents are assigned by their firms to a mission where they end up encountering each other from a distance. Unsure of whom the person they spotted is, they are ordered to eliminate the person in order to protect their cover.
This begins a rapid series of events that, as anyone who has seen the trailer will realize, the Smiths will figure out that the person they have been seeking is their very own spouse. While this destination is inevitable to the plot is not a surprise, the trip leading up to it, and the whirlwind of events that follows this discovery, is what really makes this film such an enjoyable ride.
Naturally when the two uncover their spouse’s true identity, the instincts of their professions as well as their pent up frustrations come out in an orgy of passion and violence that leaves a trail of devastation. The various encounters between the Smiths not only escalate on the violence scale, but due to issue such as pride, reputations, and betrayal, the objectivity and impersonal nature of their work are abandoned.
I think Shakespeare put it best when he said that “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”, as the scenes of Jane Smith unloading her pent up fury are almost as hysterical as the segments where John Smith takes his turn at the plate.
A prime example of the films ability to mix action and comedy to perfection is the classic dance scene where the two attempt to disarm one another in an effort to get the upper hand. Pitt and Jolie dance and exchanges barbs, as they keep the beat and discard the weapons they find, as they plot to gain the upper hand.
The film did lose a bit of its amazing momentum about a third of the way in, before regrouping and bringing the film to an action packed and very satisfying conclusion. The supporting work of Vince Vaughn is very funny, but sadly his presence is limited. The films works very well because the chemistry between the two leads is very strong, as are the action and humor sequences. Without a doubt one of the best movies of the summer and one not to be missed
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 18, 2019
Not quite (Inter)stellar...
Ad Astra is a discreet sci-fi film set in an unspecified near future, and is the claustrophobic, deliberate and tense story of Major Roy McBride (played intentionally one-dimensional by Brad Pitt), a soldier and an astronaut, recruited to a top secret mission revolving around the father he never knew, portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones.
This is one of those films where you start watching it and find yourself pleasantly surprised at how little the trailer actually gave away. The story makes a couple of significant changes in direction throughout the 122min runtime. It begins as a standard semi-sci-fi affair, similar in tone and approach to "Arrival (2016)". It's a slow build, yet has comfortable pacing. Then, it takes inspiration from "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)", "Gravity (2013)" and even "Alien (1979)", when a deep space distress call provides a brief diversion and introduces some horror undertones. Finally, it settles in for the home run, turning into a 'one man against the clock' thriller.
Pitt does a nice job of establishing the character's mindset early on, which is a primary focus of the movie. It's never so much about what's happening as it is about how it's affecting him personally. A big deal is made about how he's this emotionless, unflappable super astronaut, which is perhaps a little unbelievable at times, but serves to amplify the significance of the character's inevitable struggle with how things play out in the final act.
The soundtrack is especially clever throughout, guiding your own emotions with the peaks and troughs of dramatic music, helping build the tension when it needed to.
What I liked about this was that it reminded me of how "Minority Report (2002)" was made, in that it's a sci-fi film, but it doesn't play on the fact it's a sci-fi film. It carries on as if the setting is everyone's normal, which allows you to focus on the story without the distraction of this fantastic, make-believe world going on around you.
However, for all the things I can say it did well, it ultimately fell short of being anything other than a poor imitation of those who have come before it. Inevitable comparisons will be made with "Interstellar (2014)", "The Martian (2015)", and even "Event Horizon (1997)". It took clear inspiration from these genre heavyweights, taking elements of each and making them its own, but never quite does anything as well as these movies did. A prime example of being the jack of all trades and the master of none.
There's never really a true attachment to the characters. Every word is uttered with morose. The locations look both beautiful and barren at the same time - perhaps an unintentional reflection of the movie itself.
This wasn't a particularly bad film. It was okay. It just suffered because it spent way too long trying to be like something else, but never quite figured out exactly what it wanted to be like. The result is a film that, much like the story, drifts aimlessly through a void it never quite understood how to fill. A movie to watch if you're in the mood for something that requires an investment of your time, but don't have access to anything better.
This is one of those films where you start watching it and find yourself pleasantly surprised at how little the trailer actually gave away. The story makes a couple of significant changes in direction throughout the 122min runtime. It begins as a standard semi-sci-fi affair, similar in tone and approach to "Arrival (2016)". It's a slow build, yet has comfortable pacing. Then, it takes inspiration from "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)", "Gravity (2013)" and even "Alien (1979)", when a deep space distress call provides a brief diversion and introduces some horror undertones. Finally, it settles in for the home run, turning into a 'one man against the clock' thriller.
Pitt does a nice job of establishing the character's mindset early on, which is a primary focus of the movie. It's never so much about what's happening as it is about how it's affecting him personally. A big deal is made about how he's this emotionless, unflappable super astronaut, which is perhaps a little unbelievable at times, but serves to amplify the significance of the character's inevitable struggle with how things play out in the final act.
The soundtrack is especially clever throughout, guiding your own emotions with the peaks and troughs of dramatic music, helping build the tension when it needed to.
What I liked about this was that it reminded me of how "Minority Report (2002)" was made, in that it's a sci-fi film, but it doesn't play on the fact it's a sci-fi film. It carries on as if the setting is everyone's normal, which allows you to focus on the story without the distraction of this fantastic, make-believe world going on around you.
However, for all the things I can say it did well, it ultimately fell short of being anything other than a poor imitation of those who have come before it. Inevitable comparisons will be made with "Interstellar (2014)", "The Martian (2015)", and even "Event Horizon (1997)". It took clear inspiration from these genre heavyweights, taking elements of each and making them its own, but never quite does anything as well as these movies did. A prime example of being the jack of all trades and the master of none.
There's never really a true attachment to the characters. Every word is uttered with morose. The locations look both beautiful and barren at the same time - perhaps an unintentional reflection of the movie itself.
This wasn't a particularly bad film. It was okay. It just suffered because it spent way too long trying to be like something else, but never quite figured out exactly what it wanted to be like. The result is a film that, much like the story, drifts aimlessly through a void it never quite understood how to fill. A movie to watch if you're in the mood for something that requires an investment of your time, but don't have access to anything better.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
My first experience in IMAX was at the IMAX theater at the Grand Canyon. This was before IMAX theaters could easily be found within easy driving distance in most large cities. The movie, which interestingly still is showing today from those early years took viewers on the magical journey through the Grand Canyon. Throwing in a bit of history, with incredible visages, viewers could experience the canyon without ever hiking within its depths. It may seem odd to compare a big budget title like Ad Astra written and directed by James Gray (The Immigrant / The Lost City of Z) to a short thirty-minute experience film about the Grand Canyon, but both are equally awe inspiring and beautiful if experienced in the same way.
Ad Astra features Brad Pitt as Astronaut Roy McBride, a film that takes place in the not so distant future where the moon has become a commercialized tourist destination. A place where outside the safe tourist zones corporations fight for control of resources, and convoys are regularly ransacked by pirates looking to make a quick buck off the wares they are able to obtain. Mars has become a staging location for deep exploration ships hoping to discover if intelligent life exists outside our solar system.
Strange power surges begin to emanate deep within the galaxy, threatening to destroy everything in their path (Earth not excluded) and the top scientist are brought together to identify the threat and propose a theory to stop it. Roy McBride after suffering a near fatal fall from aboard a space station is brought into a top-secret meeting to discuss these surges. It is in this meeting that Roy is informed that the surges appear to be manifesting near Neptune and even more interestingly they are identified as anti-matter surges that are being generated from a ship that Roy’s father Clifford (Tommy Lee Jones) was in charge of nearly 29 years ago. The mission was a search for extra terrestrial life that Clifford was overseeing and presumed dead after Earth had lost contact with his ship. Roy must put his personal feelings aside regarding his father and must travel to the outer reaches of our solar system to put a stop to the surges, in any way possible.
Ad Astra is an incredible achievement in cinematography. The visions of the moon, mars and the numerous rockets taken to get there are spectacular. Much like the Grand Canyon film I spoke of earlier, in IMAX Ad Astra gives you a front row seat exploring the solar system as we know it. It takes a realistic approach while not bogging the viewers in all the technical details that would be necessary to achieve this flight. You would be doing yourself a disservice to see this film on any but the largest of movie screens. While it might be an acceptable experience in a normal theater, much of the grandiose vistas and beautiful sets would be wasted. This is not a movie to wait for on Netflix if you have any interest in seeing it at all.
From a story perspective, there isn’t a whole lot to tell. Brad Pitt brings his amazing acting abilities to a film that features more inner dialogue to himself, then to others on the screen. It is reminiscent to the original Dune movie from the 80s combined with 2001: A space odyssey. For a movie that literally is about a voyage to deep space, there are some scenes sprinkled throughout that provide some action and even a bit of suspense. Supporting characters such as Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland provide outstanding performances, even if their screen time is extremely limited. Liv Tyler once again reprises a role similar to the one from Armageddon as the reluctant wife of a man who is tasked with saving the world.
Ad Astra is a cinematic experience, the story alone is passable if not particularly quick moving and at time rarely engaging. However, when you combine this with the technological wizardry used to bring the Solar System to life it makes for an adventure that certainly lives up to the hype and will delight your visual senses. If you’ve ever dreamed of what it would be like to live on the moon or adventure into the stars, then Ad Astra might just be the closest we ever get in our lifetime. It’s beautiful, deadly and overall an achievement to behold, just make sure you see it on the biggest screen you can.
4 out of 5 stars
Ad Astra features Brad Pitt as Astronaut Roy McBride, a film that takes place in the not so distant future where the moon has become a commercialized tourist destination. A place where outside the safe tourist zones corporations fight for control of resources, and convoys are regularly ransacked by pirates looking to make a quick buck off the wares they are able to obtain. Mars has become a staging location for deep exploration ships hoping to discover if intelligent life exists outside our solar system.
Strange power surges begin to emanate deep within the galaxy, threatening to destroy everything in their path (Earth not excluded) and the top scientist are brought together to identify the threat and propose a theory to stop it. Roy McBride after suffering a near fatal fall from aboard a space station is brought into a top-secret meeting to discuss these surges. It is in this meeting that Roy is informed that the surges appear to be manifesting near Neptune and even more interestingly they are identified as anti-matter surges that are being generated from a ship that Roy’s father Clifford (Tommy Lee Jones) was in charge of nearly 29 years ago. The mission was a search for extra terrestrial life that Clifford was overseeing and presumed dead after Earth had lost contact with his ship. Roy must put his personal feelings aside regarding his father and must travel to the outer reaches of our solar system to put a stop to the surges, in any way possible.
Ad Astra is an incredible achievement in cinematography. The visions of the moon, mars and the numerous rockets taken to get there are spectacular. Much like the Grand Canyon film I spoke of earlier, in IMAX Ad Astra gives you a front row seat exploring the solar system as we know it. It takes a realistic approach while not bogging the viewers in all the technical details that would be necessary to achieve this flight. You would be doing yourself a disservice to see this film on any but the largest of movie screens. While it might be an acceptable experience in a normal theater, much of the grandiose vistas and beautiful sets would be wasted. This is not a movie to wait for on Netflix if you have any interest in seeing it at all.
From a story perspective, there isn’t a whole lot to tell. Brad Pitt brings his amazing acting abilities to a film that features more inner dialogue to himself, then to others on the screen. It is reminiscent to the original Dune movie from the 80s combined with 2001: A space odyssey. For a movie that literally is about a voyage to deep space, there are some scenes sprinkled throughout that provide some action and even a bit of suspense. Supporting characters such as Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland provide outstanding performances, even if their screen time is extremely limited. Liv Tyler once again reprises a role similar to the one from Armageddon as the reluctant wife of a man who is tasked with saving the world.
Ad Astra is a cinematic experience, the story alone is passable if not particularly quick moving and at time rarely engaging. However, when you combine this with the technological wizardry used to bring the Solar System to life it makes for an adventure that certainly lives up to the hype and will delight your visual senses. If you’ve ever dreamed of what it would be like to live on the moon or adventure into the stars, then Ad Astra might just be the closest we ever get in our lifetime. It’s beautiful, deadly and overall an achievement to behold, just make sure you see it on the biggest screen you can.
4 out of 5 stars