Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Feb 16, 2020 (Updated Feb 16, 2020)
Frenetic action in murky water - baffling (2 more)
Scientific inconsistencies
Waterlogged Alien wannabe
Soggy and forgettable
I had a sinking feeling (excuse the pun) about this movie from the word go. It's a lazy approach to 'mansplain' the whole set up for the movie through digital news posts during the main titles. It feels more patronising to the audience than having main titles and then a 'Star Wars-style' synopsis.
Once into the movie, director William Eubank gives us the bare minimum of character set-up for our heroine while she brushes her teeth*. (And no way did she even follow the British Dental Association recommendation of two minutes brushing!) (* Interestingly, the trailer seems to show some above water scenes/dialogue and introductions to the rest of the crew that never made the final cut.)
And then....
BAM!!!
I was thinking that the manic action that follows was some sort of dream or flashback. But no. We are pitched headlong into the story without pause as disaster strikes. It all feels positively indecent.
For we are seven miles down in the Mariana trench, when a drilling station springs a leak.
Now call me a cynic, but I would have *thought* that, at that depth, a single leak would implode the whole station in about 10 seconds flat. But then that wouldn't be cinematic enough, and would be a much shorter movie!
And there are numerous other scientific implausibilities. For example, diving helmets that appear to be able to withstand 15,750 psi of pressure (I Googled it) can be smashed-in by a woman by just bashing it.
Sigh.
We are in 'Alien-lite' territory again. Just as in last year's "The Meg", those pesky humans have disturbed something in its home territory.... and it's suitably pissed-off. The action centres on hippy-chick engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). The script neatly describes her as a "flat-chested elfin creature"... a fact which every male in the audience has thought (come on guys, admit it , you did!) from the immediately preceding scene.
It was never entirely clear to me what skills Norah was supposed to have.... it seemed to flex from diving to electrical engineering to computer engineering.
Stewart is a handy actress to have in a movie, but here she is mostly relegated to lots of shots of her athletic body running through corridors in her skimpy crop-top and knickers.
Supporting Stewart are veteran French actor Vincent Cassel as the mission captain; "the funny one" Paul (T.J. Miller); the trusty male action figure Smith (John Gallagher Jr.); and Emily - the 'less-flat chested but screamy one' (Jessica Henwick). Emily also gets to run around in a T-shirt and knickers: you kind of quickly get to know the audience the film is trying to appeal to.
As will be obvious if you've seen any of these types of film before, not all of these folks are going to make it.
As this movie is presumably filmed in a small water tank in a Louisiana studio. Clearly the memo said "fill it with murky water so the audience can't see the sides". "And just for good measure, let's film it with hand-help rapidly moving cameras". The result is that a lot of the time, when there was a burst of frenetic underwater action, I had NO IDEA what was actually going on.
In this way, the movie reminded me of the shark B-movie "47 Metres Down" from a few years ago.
This is certainly not "Alien". Although similarly set, this is not "The Abyss" either. It's most similar perhaps to "Life", but without the clever twist ending.
It's also not a truly TERRIBLE movie either. But unfortunately this is one of the most "meh" action movies I've seen in the past year. It's just brain-crushingly forgettable.
There was only one vaguely memorable shot in the whole movie: a final shot of Kristen Stewart. But that just serves to make me think.... 'Stewart deserves much better than this'.
For a movie concerning itself with a lack of oxygen, watching this felt like a waste of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-underwater-2020/ ).
Once into the movie, director William Eubank gives us the bare minimum of character set-up for our heroine while she brushes her teeth*. (And no way did she even follow the British Dental Association recommendation of two minutes brushing!) (* Interestingly, the trailer seems to show some above water scenes/dialogue and introductions to the rest of the crew that never made the final cut.)
And then....
BAM!!!
I was thinking that the manic action that follows was some sort of dream or flashback. But no. We are pitched headlong into the story without pause as disaster strikes. It all feels positively indecent.
For we are seven miles down in the Mariana trench, when a drilling station springs a leak.
Now call me a cynic, but I would have *thought* that, at that depth, a single leak would implode the whole station in about 10 seconds flat. But then that wouldn't be cinematic enough, and would be a much shorter movie!
And there are numerous other scientific implausibilities. For example, diving helmets that appear to be able to withstand 15,750 psi of pressure (I Googled it) can be smashed-in by a woman by just bashing it.
Sigh.
We are in 'Alien-lite' territory again. Just as in last year's "The Meg", those pesky humans have disturbed something in its home territory.... and it's suitably pissed-off. The action centres on hippy-chick engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). The script neatly describes her as a "flat-chested elfin creature"... a fact which every male in the audience has thought (come on guys, admit it , you did!) from the immediately preceding scene.
It was never entirely clear to me what skills Norah was supposed to have.... it seemed to flex from diving to electrical engineering to computer engineering.
Stewart is a handy actress to have in a movie, but here she is mostly relegated to lots of shots of her athletic body running through corridors in her skimpy crop-top and knickers.
Supporting Stewart are veteran French actor Vincent Cassel as the mission captain; "the funny one" Paul (T.J. Miller); the trusty male action figure Smith (John Gallagher Jr.); and Emily - the 'less-flat chested but screamy one' (Jessica Henwick). Emily also gets to run around in a T-shirt and knickers: you kind of quickly get to know the audience the film is trying to appeal to.
As will be obvious if you've seen any of these types of film before, not all of these folks are going to make it.
As this movie is presumably filmed in a small water tank in a Louisiana studio. Clearly the memo said "fill it with murky water so the audience can't see the sides". "And just for good measure, let's film it with hand-help rapidly moving cameras". The result is that a lot of the time, when there was a burst of frenetic underwater action, I had NO IDEA what was actually going on.
In this way, the movie reminded me of the shark B-movie "47 Metres Down" from a few years ago.
This is certainly not "Alien". Although similarly set, this is not "The Abyss" either. It's most similar perhaps to "Life", but without the clever twist ending.
It's also not a truly TERRIBLE movie either. But unfortunately this is one of the most "meh" action movies I've seen in the past year. It's just brain-crushingly forgettable.
There was only one vaguely memorable shot in the whole movie: a final shot of Kristen Stewart. But that just serves to make me think.... 'Stewart deserves much better than this'.
For a movie concerning itself with a lack of oxygen, watching this felt like a waste of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-underwater-2020/ ).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Come the F*** on Bridget… who’s the Daddy?
The world’s favourite lonely-hearts diarist is back. Bridget (Renée Zellweger) once again starts the film ‘all by herself’, haunted by occasional meetings with ex-flame Mark D’Arcy (Colin Firth) – now married to Camilla (Agni Scott) – and facing the natural discomfort of the early funeral of another friend who has died way too young. And at 43, Bridget’s biological clock is also ticking towards parental midnight.
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Altered States (1980) in Movies
Oct 26, 2019
Dr. Eddie Jessup is conducting some interesting research using a deprivation chamber. His goal is to better understand the human mind and maybe the psychology of schizophrenia or how the deep unconscious works. He meets a smart female mind and the two have a whirlwind romance which distracts from his research a bit.
He does manage to make a trip to Mexico where he hears about a tribe using a hallucinatory drug which causes some of the same effects he experienced while submerged in his isolation tank back home so he decides to try it. He has massive hallucinations, loses control of his actions and even gives in to his more primal instincts and devours a sheep. When he wakes he only remember bits and pieces of his actions, but is convinced this is the correct road for his research.
Back in the US, he decides to combine both elements of his research including use of the drug and the chamber at the same time to see the results. The results of the combination are not only dangerous to Eddie's psyche and soul, but to his physical human body as well. He performs an unsupervised deprivation experience on his own and experiences an evolution regression back to a primitive homo sapien state which is now loose in the basement of his lab and has to be stopped.
Eddie ultimately has to decide if his estranged family or his research is more important to him and if now it is too late to have them both.
Famed, provocative British director Ken Russell takes on the task of bringing this interesting, colorful and wild film to life. He already had a reputation of helming controversial films like The Devils and Tommy, so maybe this film was a step down from those.
The psychedelic hallucination sequences Eddie experiences while on the drug or in the chamber were so unique, shocking and visceral they were intense but hard to look away from. Images were being edited at such a pace your mind races as you watch them. Eddie's personal journey as a doctor and student of the human mind are fascinating to watch as he struggles with his relationship with his wife and kids at the same time. As he continues his research, he wants to understand what is happening to him, but doesn't want to be inhibited but others' desires.
William Hurt and Blair Brown have good chemistry when together onscreen and you feel her concern as she feels she is losing the man she loves to something she doesn't understand. They both field infidelity in their marriage as he tries to fill the empty space of commitment and she tries in vain to replace with others the man she truly loves.
He does manage to make a trip to Mexico where he hears about a tribe using a hallucinatory drug which causes some of the same effects he experienced while submerged in his isolation tank back home so he decides to try it. He has massive hallucinations, loses control of his actions and even gives in to his more primal instincts and devours a sheep. When he wakes he only remember bits and pieces of his actions, but is convinced this is the correct road for his research.
Back in the US, he decides to combine both elements of his research including use of the drug and the chamber at the same time to see the results. The results of the combination are not only dangerous to Eddie's psyche and soul, but to his physical human body as well. He performs an unsupervised deprivation experience on his own and experiences an evolution regression back to a primitive homo sapien state which is now loose in the basement of his lab and has to be stopped.
Eddie ultimately has to decide if his estranged family or his research is more important to him and if now it is too late to have them both.
Famed, provocative British director Ken Russell takes on the task of bringing this interesting, colorful and wild film to life. He already had a reputation of helming controversial films like The Devils and Tommy, so maybe this film was a step down from those.
The psychedelic hallucination sequences Eddie experiences while on the drug or in the chamber were so unique, shocking and visceral they were intense but hard to look away from. Images were being edited at such a pace your mind races as you watch them. Eddie's personal journey as a doctor and student of the human mind are fascinating to watch as he struggles with his relationship with his wife and kids at the same time. As he continues his research, he wants to understand what is happening to him, but doesn't want to be inhibited but others' desires.
William Hurt and Blair Brown have good chemistry when together onscreen and you feel her concern as she feels she is losing the man she loves to something she doesn't understand. They both field infidelity in their marriage as he tries to fill the empty space of commitment and she tries in vain to replace with others the man she truly loves.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Dom Hemingway (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Dom Hemingway’ is a dark comedy-crime drama movie written and directed by Richard
Shepard (better known for directing the pilot episode of Ugly Betty) and stars
Jude Law, Emilia Clarke, Richard E. Grant, and Demian Bichir.
Dom (Jude Law) is a foul-mouthed, short-tempered, and reckless master safe cracker who
is returning to the streets after 12 years in prison. Intent on collecting his reward for
keeping silent while in prison and fueled by massive amounts of alcohol, drugs, and his
massive ego, Dom and his best friend/partner in crime Dickie (Richard E. Grant) travel
though the British and French country sides to rendevous with Dom’s former employeer
Mr. Fontaine. Shortly thereafter though, Don arrives at the conclusion that no amount
of money can replace what hes’ lost and that his one and only priority is to
seek out his long-lost daughter Evelyn (Emilia Clarke).
Now, this movie is definitely a departure from Jude Law’s previous movies. Imagine him
if he were to gain 29 lbs., dress like an evil ‘Fonz’, and then join ‘Motorhead’.
THAT .. is the Jude Law you get to see in this movie. It’s dark, but fun at the same time.
Most definitely NOT something kids should see. It’s full-speed ahead with sex, drugs,
and rock & roll. When the movie does put on the brakes, it slams on the brakes hard!
Watching the character try to acclimate to the world after 12 years in prison and make
peace with his daughter and her family … it’s like watching a champion’s league
soccer match. One minute one team has it, the next minute the other team has it….
You honestly don’t know what’s going to happen next. Me? Personally? I got a kick out of
this one. My only beef is the way the movie ended … if I told you why though, i’d
be spoiling the movie. For that reason, I give the film 3 out of 5 stars.
Again, a great movie … Dark … but also funny. But the ending? It came just too soon.
Shepard (better known for directing the pilot episode of Ugly Betty) and stars
Jude Law, Emilia Clarke, Richard E. Grant, and Demian Bichir.
Dom (Jude Law) is a foul-mouthed, short-tempered, and reckless master safe cracker who
is returning to the streets after 12 years in prison. Intent on collecting his reward for
keeping silent while in prison and fueled by massive amounts of alcohol, drugs, and his
massive ego, Dom and his best friend/partner in crime Dickie (Richard E. Grant) travel
though the British and French country sides to rendevous with Dom’s former employeer
Mr. Fontaine. Shortly thereafter though, Don arrives at the conclusion that no amount
of money can replace what hes’ lost and that his one and only priority is to
seek out his long-lost daughter Evelyn (Emilia Clarke).
Now, this movie is definitely a departure from Jude Law’s previous movies. Imagine him
if he were to gain 29 lbs., dress like an evil ‘Fonz’, and then join ‘Motorhead’.
THAT .. is the Jude Law you get to see in this movie. It’s dark, but fun at the same time.
Most definitely NOT something kids should see. It’s full-speed ahead with sex, drugs,
and rock & roll. When the movie does put on the brakes, it slams on the brakes hard!
Watching the character try to acclimate to the world after 12 years in prison and make
peace with his daughter and her family … it’s like watching a champion’s league
soccer match. One minute one team has it, the next minute the other team has it….
You honestly don’t know what’s going to happen next. Me? Personally? I got a kick out of
this one. My only beef is the way the movie ended … if I told you why though, i’d
be spoiling the movie. For that reason, I give the film 3 out of 5 stars.
Again, a great movie … Dark … but also funny. But the ending? It came just too soon.
The Great Escaper: The Life and Death of Roger Bushell - Love, Betrayal, Big x and the Great Escape
Book
Roger Bushell was 'Big X', mastermind of the mass breakout from Stalag Luft III in March 1944,...
Last Exit to Brooklyn
Book
Few novels have caused as much debate as Hubert Selby Jr.'s notorious masterpiece, Last Exit to...
Paper Girls: Volume 1
Cliff Chiang, Brian K. Vaughan, Matthew Wilson and Jared K. Fletcher
8.4
Rate It
Book
From Brian K. Vaughan, #1 New York Times bestselling writer of SAGA, and Cliff Chiang, legendary...
Flying Scotsman: A Pictorial History
Book
Built at Doncaster works in 1923 the Nigel Gresley designed then-A1 class Pacific (4-6-2) first...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) in Movies
Jan 15, 2019
Classic
A man goes to Hawaii to forget about his celebrity ex-girlfriend…only to find that she’s staying at the same resort with her new dude.
Acting: 10
Jason Segel plays the perfect broken man in his role as Peter. He carries a pitifulness that’s endearing, a guy easy to root for. From a comedic standpoint, his timing is always right there and it feels extremely natural as if we’re being introduced to a real person. I can only think of a handful of actors that could pull off the role as successfully as Segel. A number of other roles solidified the acting in the movie as well, but Segel carried the movie in my opinion.
Beginning: 10
Forgetting Sarah Marshall grabs your funny bone from jump and sets the tone. The first ten minutes introduces us to Peter as we watch him go about his boring, but hilarious day. Everytime I think about the breakup scene between him and Sarah (Kristen Bell), it still cracks me up. You knew right away the rest of the film was going to be classic.
Characters: 10
The movie sports a solid cast of characters with just enough originality to keep things interesting without going overboard. You’ve got Rachel (Mila Kunis), the badass front desk attendant who gives Peter a reason to enjoy life again. Then there’s the British rockstar and the hotel attendant who is obsessed with him. I could go on as these are just a handful of the crew that make this movie shine.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Others won’t agree, but this is the funniest movie I’ve ever seen. It has everything we want in a comedy. It’s funny without having to go over the top to try. It succeeds with a comical real-life premise that has the right characters surrounding it. Not only does it make you laugh, but it makes you feel as well. But, most importantly, it makes you laugh…A LOT. It hits you with several different types of funny from the characters themselves to the subtle jabs.
Memorability: 10
A classic movie has scenes that stick out in your head for years to come. Forgetting Sarah Marshall has a number of those scenes. When the towel drops. Peter crying naked on the floor then having to defend himself. Dracula musical. The surf scene. I could go on…These are scenes that, by themselves, could make a movie memorable. Together, they made Forgetting Sarah Marshall a classic.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
I know what you’re thinking. What are the chances he goes on vacation and ends up at the exact same resort as his ex at the same exact time? I thought about this a lot and concluded that it could have been completely conceivable that Peter and Sarah had talked about that resort in the past. Alternatively they could have even had plans to go to that resort together during that week and the breakup changed that. Ultimately I decided it didn’t need to completely make sense. It’s a comedy and it’s unique enough for me to not have gotten bogged down in the “how”.
Resolution: 10
Starts just like it ends: Perfectly. It fits both for Peter and Rachel, definitely putting a smile on my face. It works on a lot of levels, touching but still maintaining the level of humor that carried the film to this point.
Overall: 100
A film is always the sum of its parts. Forgetting Sarah Marshall does everything right and then some. From its beautiful cinematics (thank you, Hawaii) to downright perfect pacing, it succeeds on every level. Classic.
Acting: 10
Jason Segel plays the perfect broken man in his role as Peter. He carries a pitifulness that’s endearing, a guy easy to root for. From a comedic standpoint, his timing is always right there and it feels extremely natural as if we’re being introduced to a real person. I can only think of a handful of actors that could pull off the role as successfully as Segel. A number of other roles solidified the acting in the movie as well, but Segel carried the movie in my opinion.
Beginning: 10
Forgetting Sarah Marshall grabs your funny bone from jump and sets the tone. The first ten minutes introduces us to Peter as we watch him go about his boring, but hilarious day. Everytime I think about the breakup scene between him and Sarah (Kristen Bell), it still cracks me up. You knew right away the rest of the film was going to be classic.
Characters: 10
The movie sports a solid cast of characters with just enough originality to keep things interesting without going overboard. You’ve got Rachel (Mila Kunis), the badass front desk attendant who gives Peter a reason to enjoy life again. Then there’s the British rockstar and the hotel attendant who is obsessed with him. I could go on as these are just a handful of the crew that make this movie shine.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Others won’t agree, but this is the funniest movie I’ve ever seen. It has everything we want in a comedy. It’s funny without having to go over the top to try. It succeeds with a comical real-life premise that has the right characters surrounding it. Not only does it make you laugh, but it makes you feel as well. But, most importantly, it makes you laugh…A LOT. It hits you with several different types of funny from the characters themselves to the subtle jabs.
Memorability: 10
A classic movie has scenes that stick out in your head for years to come. Forgetting Sarah Marshall has a number of those scenes. When the towel drops. Peter crying naked on the floor then having to defend himself. Dracula musical. The surf scene. I could go on…These are scenes that, by themselves, could make a movie memorable. Together, they made Forgetting Sarah Marshall a classic.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
I know what you’re thinking. What are the chances he goes on vacation and ends up at the exact same resort as his ex at the same exact time? I thought about this a lot and concluded that it could have been completely conceivable that Peter and Sarah had talked about that resort in the past. Alternatively they could have even had plans to go to that resort together during that week and the breakup changed that. Ultimately I decided it didn’t need to completely make sense. It’s a comedy and it’s unique enough for me to not have gotten bogged down in the “how”.
Resolution: 10
Starts just like it ends: Perfectly. It fits both for Peter and Rachel, definitely putting a smile on my face. It works on a lot of levels, touching but still maintaining the level of humor that carried the film to this point.
Overall: 100
A film is always the sum of its parts. Forgetting Sarah Marshall does everything right and then some. From its beautiful cinematics (thank you, Hawaii) to downright perfect pacing, it succeeds on every level. Classic.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.