Search
Search results
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Alice in Wonderland (2010) in Movies
Dec 3, 2020 (Updated Dec 3, 2020)
A greasy, molten CGI fever dream that bounces from random bullshit to random bullshit with the appeal of rabies mouth foam - I actually sort of dig it? Ten and a half years ago this was read as possibly one of the worst offenses to the Disney brand at the time; but now in lieu of the ever-growing gallery of visually sterile, grossly overbloated, laborious live action remakes we have now from the company the fact that this has any idiosyncrasy at all - insane as it is - makes this automatically better by comparison and you can't convince me otherwise. For better and for worse there's a reason people remember "Tim Burton's šššŖš¤š¦ šŖšÆ šš°šÆš„š¦š³šš¢šÆš„" and not "Guy Ritchie's ššš¢š„š„šŖšÆ", for instance. Not to say this is that good, it still sucks a shit ton where it counts - has most of the usual collection of issues these have including but not limited to trying to turn this purposefully senseless source material into another bland "find your destiny" snore and maybe the most nothing lead character to ever exist (doesn't help that Wasikowska dons one expression the entire movie). But it's also 100% cockamamie self-assured auteur work that occasionally finds home to some striking imagery like tiny Alice crossing the water over bloated decapitated heads or the gorgeous final battle on a chess board-esque field. As you've heard, angry bobblehead Helena Bonham Carter steals the show. I like this a lot more than its detractors but hate it a lot more than its supporters.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
Comedy comes in many forms and is certainly subjective. Unfortunately, slapstick comedy which is plastered all over the second outing for Indiana Jones really holds the film back as a whole for me.
Where Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade are more straight shooting adventures, the comedic elements in them are placed fantastically, sparingly, and add to the overall experience. Temple of Doom is more of a gauntlet of jokes and over the top silliness, and most of it unfortunately doesn't land.
A lot of this comes from Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw), who acts as (constant) comic relief and Indiana Jones' love interest. The character is written in a way that she ends up at worst not being remotely likable, and at best being hugely grating.
Thankfully, the final third of Temple of Doom redeems matters a fair bit. The whole last sequence is unrelenting in its series of events. The action is masterfully executed, and feels like Spielberg was just constantly trying to one up himself in what he was doing, and his efforts result in an extremely fun and thrilling final act.
Once again, a lot of practical effects on display that lends this blockbuster series a sense of magic in a pre CGI age, and an as-per-usual incredible score from John Williams can be considered huge positives.
Overall then, Temple of Doom is a mixed bag for me, and easily my least favourite of the initial trilogy, even if I do have some find childhood memories attached to it!
Where Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade are more straight shooting adventures, the comedic elements in them are placed fantastically, sparingly, and add to the overall experience. Temple of Doom is more of a gauntlet of jokes and over the top silliness, and most of it unfortunately doesn't land.
A lot of this comes from Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw), who acts as (constant) comic relief and Indiana Jones' love interest. The character is written in a way that she ends up at worst not being remotely likable, and at best being hugely grating.
Thankfully, the final third of Temple of Doom redeems matters a fair bit. The whole last sequence is unrelenting in its series of events. The action is masterfully executed, and feels like Spielberg was just constantly trying to one up himself in what he was doing, and his efforts result in an extremely fun and thrilling final act.
Once again, a lot of practical effects on display that lends this blockbuster series a sense of magic in a pre CGI age, and an as-per-usual incredible score from John Williams can be considered huge positives.
Overall then, Temple of Doom is a mixed bag for me, and easily my least favourite of the initial trilogy, even if I do have some find childhood memories attached to it!
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Jul 13, 2019
More female Superhero movies please!
I had read a lot of criticism of Brie Larson since I am so late seeing this film; however, I thought she held her own against Samuel L. Jackson and Jude Law in this first major female led Marvel Cinematic Universe film. Maybe my expectations were a tad lower since I had heard of lot of opinions beforehand.
The origin story of Carol Danvers was unknown prior to seeing this film so I cannot comment on whether filmmakers got that correct or not (I would imagine they did).
The Stan Lee opening made my tear up.
I did think the movie dragged some in the middle after Carol gets thrown back to 1995 USA. The Blockbusters scene was classic and her introduction to Nick Fury and SHIELD was good. Things picked up a little for the car/subway chase, but then slowed down again as events unfolded and were explained.
I was happy there was not the humongous CGI supervillain at the end and that fight was very good.
You cannot ever complain about the look of a MCU as that is one thing they never disappoint on for sure. The humor I thought was a good balance: not too serious and not too wacky either.
The cat definitely stole every scene they were in for sure.
Overall, very entertaining film and a great start to other female Marvel heroines coming us us hopefully not too far away in the future!
Thank you Stan!
The origin story of Carol Danvers was unknown prior to seeing this film so I cannot comment on whether filmmakers got that correct or not (I would imagine they did).
The Stan Lee opening made my tear up.
I did think the movie dragged some in the middle after Carol gets thrown back to 1995 USA. The Blockbusters scene was classic and her introduction to Nick Fury and SHIELD was good. Things picked up a little for the car/subway chase, but then slowed down again as events unfolded and were explained.
I was happy there was not the humongous CGI supervillain at the end and that fight was very good.
You cannot ever complain about the look of a MCU as that is one thing they never disappoint on for sure. The humor I thought was a good balance: not too serious and not too wacky either.
The cat definitely stole every scene they were in for sure.
Overall, very entertaining film and a great start to other female Marvel heroines coming us us hopefully not too far away in the future!
Thank you Stan!
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Waxwork (1988) in Movies
Oct 13, 2019
Several teenagers encounter an ominous looking building housing a curious wax museum in their neighborhood one fine day. The proprietor is an evil Willy Wonka of sorts who invites them in for a look see. Once inside they discover the curious life-like looking exhibits which peak their individual curiosities. They soon discover the chilling truth. Once the velvet rope guarding each individual chamber pulls itself aside, an unsuspecting young person is transported to the specific realm depicted from the outside. These could include the mummy, the Phantom of the Opera and even the Marquis de Sade.Not only must they try and escape and not get caught by the evil creatures within, but they have to discover the overall diabolical plan for their destruction.
I had forgotten about this 80s cheesy horror flick until a recent stroll though Amazon Prime. The main reason for watching is the practical effects, They were cool by 80s standards; albeit a bit cheesy now. Having said so, I would still much rather have practical effects rather than bad CGI which completely takes you out of the scene. At least with practical effects, they are being executed on set so the actors can interact with them rather than staring at a blank wall.
There was some decent gore and semi funny moments as well. Parts of it reminded me of a Evil Dead type camp where they were not trying t take themselves too seriously, but I do not know if that as their intention.
I had forgotten about this 80s cheesy horror flick until a recent stroll though Amazon Prime. The main reason for watching is the practical effects, They were cool by 80s standards; albeit a bit cheesy now. Having said so, I would still much rather have practical effects rather than bad CGI which completely takes you out of the scene. At least with practical effects, they are being executed on set so the actors can interact with them rather than staring at a blank wall.
There was some decent gore and semi funny moments as well. Parts of it reminded me of a Evil Dead type camp where they were not trying t take themselves too seriously, but I do not know if that as their intention.
Logan Eccles (135 KP) rated The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance in TV
Oct 1, 2020 (Updated Oct 2, 2020)
Henson Lives on
First off this is one I will not be able to be unbias because I've been I huge Henson fan my whole 24 years of life. Puppetry helped me find my young voice when I was too ashamed to speak with my speech impediment. That being said here's my Review. Thank you, Netflix for producing this modern-day masterpiece of pure brilliance. The mixture of classic Henson puppetry and CGI was blended well and even though most times you could tell the difference of the change and looked good. As the animation and puppetry were superb so was the story development. The progression of the story was fun, smart, and beautiful. The use of characters from the movie and newly introduced characters for the show were also smart and developed well for the overall story. The cast was a good assembly of voices, though some were easily confused for others with similarity in voices, they were still fantastic. Simon Peg was especially great as The Chamberlin was my favorite character from the movie, Simon did a great job of mimicking the voice and keeping it as special as it was, Helena Bonham also did a good job of this with Ogla. Finally, the way the show ended at a moment that tied it to the movie but also left enough space to make a possible second season was smart. When I first heard this was going to be a show and not a movie I wasn't sure it would work but it was great I highly recommend.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Nov 9, 2021
I'm not the biggest fan of the first Venom but I'll happily admit that it's fun. This one is kind of the same - I actually think it's worse, but the pure schlock is entertaining enough to get by.
Woody Harrelson is a suitably over the top villain, and I was pleasantly surprised by how entertaining the big CGI moments were. Carnage was well realised and felt dangerous and almost unstoppable.
Unlike the first film however, it's outweighed by the bad. The comedic moments are laid on thick, and a lot of it doesn't land. The dialogue is fine for the most part, but noticeably plummets in the last third. In a world where so many blockbusters run between 2-3 hours, I'm not complaining about the brisk 90 minute runtime, but it actually felt like a lot was left on the cutting room floor. It ensures that it never gets boring, but it feels a bit haphazard as a result.
I understand that LTBC is supposed to be schlocky and silly, and to it's credit, it does bring it when it comes to the action, but something is missing with both of these films. Venom isn't as scary as I remember reading the comics as a kid, and I'm not overly keen on the whole anti-hero thing they have going on, but at the end of the day, it is what is, a loud and dumb action film that does exactly what you expect it to do.
Woody Harrelson is a suitably over the top villain, and I was pleasantly surprised by how entertaining the big CGI moments were. Carnage was well realised and felt dangerous and almost unstoppable.
Unlike the first film however, it's outweighed by the bad. The comedic moments are laid on thick, and a lot of it doesn't land. The dialogue is fine for the most part, but noticeably plummets in the last third. In a world where so many blockbusters run between 2-3 hours, I'm not complaining about the brisk 90 minute runtime, but it actually felt like a lot was left on the cutting room floor. It ensures that it never gets boring, but it feels a bit haphazard as a result.
I understand that LTBC is supposed to be schlocky and silly, and to it's credit, it does bring it when it comes to the action, but something is missing with both of these films. Venom isn't as scary as I remember reading the comics as a kid, and I'm not overly keen on the whole anti-hero thing they have going on, but at the end of the day, it is what is, a loud and dumb action film that does exactly what you expect it to do.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Moonfall (2022) in Movies
Feb 10, 2022
Approximately 30 minutes from the end, due to a sudden and sharp escalation of absurdity, I turned round to my mate and said "what the fuck is happening" - a simple remark that I think sums up Moonfall quite well. It relates directly to the main positive that I found, in that I can't help but admire how hard this film commits to all out sci-fi when it comes to crunch time. It prevents the end result from being a complete bore at the very least.
Roland Emmerich has become a master of underwhelming, disaster flicks at this point, he can make them in his sleep. Instead of doing something new, he's taken his best film, Independence Day, and one of his worst films, 2012, and just smashed them together like a kid playing with their action figures. It results in a predictable outcome - a film that's kind of entertaining, with passable CGI, and a host of characters that we don't care about, with personal issues that we don't care about, and who have more screentime than the mindless destruction of the planet that we all crave. John Bradley, bless him, gives it his all. Easily the highlight of a cast that are woodenly cashing in a paycheck. The dialogue is so awful that I zoned out pretty hard on several occasions.
There was guy in the same screen as us who just very loudly demolished a multi pack of Cadburys Picnics, followed by an entire loaf of Soreen, which was quite astonishing, and made the experience a bit more memorable. Cheers mate.
Roland Emmerich has become a master of underwhelming, disaster flicks at this point, he can make them in his sleep. Instead of doing something new, he's taken his best film, Independence Day, and one of his worst films, 2012, and just smashed them together like a kid playing with their action figures. It results in a predictable outcome - a film that's kind of entertaining, with passable CGI, and a host of characters that we don't care about, with personal issues that we don't care about, and who have more screentime than the mindless destruction of the planet that we all crave. John Bradley, bless him, gives it his all. Easily the highlight of a cast that are woodenly cashing in a paycheck. The dialogue is so awful that I zoned out pretty hard on several occasions.
There was guy in the same screen as us who just very loudly demolished a multi pack of Cadburys Picnics, followed by an entire loaf of Soreen, which was quite astonishing, and made the experience a bit more memorable. Cheers mate.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
Darth Vader (1 more)
Fits nicely with the rest of the series
What's Old Is New
So our yearly Star Wars movie has arrived and after a complicated production it has released to rave reviews, with some outlets going as far as to compare it in quality to Empire Strikes Back, (which is widely considered to be the superior Star Wars film,) and it has even garnered a fair amount of Oscar buzz. This, along with the fact itās a Star Wars movie meant that my expectations for this were pretty high going in and after seeing the movie there are parts of the flick that I loved and parts that I didnāt. When I wrote my Force Awakens review last year, I wrote both a spoiler free and a spoiler filled version of the review, but this year I have less time on my hands, so from this point on this will be a spoiler filled review, but the movie has been out for almost a week at the time of writing this, so if you havenāt seen the movie yet and are reading my review, well that is your own fault.
This movie for the most part impressed me. I loved how well it tied into A New Hope and how it actually fixed that movieās biggest plothole by explaining that the weak point in the Death Star was installed on purpose by Galen Erso while designing the battle station under the Empireās thumb, so that the Rebels would have a chance to destroy it. I loved how the movie had the balls to kills off the entire crew of the Rogue One team at the end of the movie and that corridor scene at the end with Vader was possibly the best scene Iāve seen in the cinema this year, itās definitely up there with the airport scene in Civil War. Those are the stand out positives of the movie for me, however there were also a few flaws throughout the film.
First of all, that Grand Mof Tarkin CGI recreation of Peter Cushing was awful, the whole thing looked like a character from the Star Wars animated series. When he is first introduced it is through a glass reflection on a window he is looking out of and in that part of the scene it was fairly convincing, however he then turns around and the camera moves to a medium close up shot and all of a sudden it feels like watching a video game cutscene. Guy Henry was the actor who did the motion capture for Tarkin and that actor actually looks relatively similar to Peter Cushing, so why they didnāt just apply some makeup to Guy Henry and dye his hair gray to resemble Cushing more and recast the Tarkin role is a mystery to me, it would have also been a lot cheaper than the method that they went with. Either that or he should have only been seen in the reflection of the glass, since that was the only time that the CGI effect actually looked convincing. However, I did think that the CGI recreation of 1970ās Carrie Fischer at the end of the movie was very convincing and if it wasnāt for the movement in her mouth, I wouldnāt have known that was a CGI character. Another flaw I had with the movie was the how rushed and choppy the first act was, the characters were all introduced quickly and vaguely, then it took them ages to actually form up as a team. I get that introducing a whole cast of brand new characters in a short space of time isnāt easy, but Tarantino pulls it off in Hateful 8 and Inglorious Bastards and it works a lot better than it works here.
In a lot of ways Rogue One is a contrast to Force Awakens. In Force Awakens, the plot was essentially the same as A New Hope and was a fairly by the book, traditional Star Wars story, but the characters were what made that movie, if Poe Dameron, Rey, Finn, Kylo Ren, Han and Chewie werenāt as well written, that movie would have been mediocre at best. In Rogue One, the characters are pretty shallow and underdeveloped and they are introduced quickly and by the end of the movie none of them have really had a proper character arc. However that is not what this movie is about, this film is about a team of people coming together in order to complete a task to set up the events of the original trilogy and in that sense this movie does what it sets out to do. An example of this is the robot character K2SO, who I thought was going to start off with no humanity, then over the course of the movie realize the value of human life and then sacrifice himself for the greater good at the movieās climax, but it turns out that the only real reason that he is helping the Rebels, is because he has been programmed to do so. This I feel sums up the level of character development present in the movie and demonstrates that it is not necessary in the film as that isnāt the movieās purpose. What Force Awakens lacked in an original plot, it made up for in character development and what Rogue One lacks in character development, it makes up for in plot and setup, so both movies have their strengths and their flaws. Bearing in mind that I have only seen Rogue One once so far, I currently prefer Force Awakens to Rogue One, but then I prefer Return of the Jedi to Empire, so maybe thatās just me.
The writing moves the story along at a brisk pace, but it is effective in that you are constantly kept aware of where we are and what is happening at least from the end of the first act onwards. The performances are also suitable to the characters in each role, but I wouldnāt say anyone was incredible, my personal favourite was Cassian, the Allianceās trigger finger who had shades of Han Solo thrown in as well. While watching Diego Lunaās performance, I actually thought he would be a good pick to play Nathan Drake in the Uncharted movie. The lighting in the film is well used and the CGI is spectacular for the most part other than weird waxwork Peter Cushing. The space battles are breathtaking and the action on the ground is also exciting.
Now, letās talk about the characters that werenāt part of the Rogue One team. Forest Whittaker and Mads Mikkelson are two of my favourite actors working in Hollywood today and they are both in this movie, but I feel that both could have been used more. When they are onscreen, they are brilliant, itās just a pity they make up such a small part of the movie. Whittaker appears only to be killed off minutes later and Mikkelson is only in two major scenes outside of a brief hologram appearance and then also gets killed off unceremoniously. The reason that a lot of people will go and see this movie however, will be to see Darth Vader. He isnāt in the movie much, but when he is it is fantastic. All of this reminds me a lot of Edwardsā last movie Godzilla, where Bryan Cranston and the monster were clearly the best parts of that movie, but for some reason were hardly in the thing. Itās as if Edwards has this idea in his head that less is always more and if he doesnāt show what people want to see in the movie for more than a few minutes at a time, then he is being original and artistic. While I understand this way of thinking from an auteur perspective, itās fucking Star Wars and Godzilla mate, just give the people what they want. It is far less of an issue here however, since the rest of the cast in Rogue One are far more compelling than the rest of the cast in Godzilla.
Anyway, back to Vader. We first see Vader when Krennic goes to see him in his Imperial Castle in Mustafar, the same location that he was relieved of his limbs and burnt alive in a pool of lava. The way he is introduced is awesome, when Krennic arrives one of Vaderās cloaked minions enters a large room containing an ominous bacta tank, which we see Vader floating in without his suit on. This is the most vulnerable we have ever seen Vader since we saw him getting his suit fitted for the first time in Revenge Of The Sith. The tank empties and we see Vaderās stumps where his arms and legs once were and we see the burnt skin that covers his torso. Then we cut to him in full costume, complete with the classic James Earl Jones voice and force choking Krennic. He then disappears again for most of the movie, until the second to last scene where he is at his most powerful and this could genuinely be my favourite Vader scene of all time, perhaps even beating the infamous, āI am your father,ā scene from Empire. Vader in this scene is pure raw anger and power and the way the scene is shot and lit is fucking perfect, the audio and the editing fantastic also. The scene opens with a dark corridor with Rebels scrambling to get the hard drive containing the Death Star plans to the other end of the corridor and onto the ship that Leia is on, so that she can go on to get the plans into R2 in order to kick off A New Hopeās events. At first you wonder why the Rebels are in such a panic then you hear the terrifying breathing from Vaderās suit, but he still isnāt shown. Then the first and only lightsaber in the movie is sparked and it illuminates Vader in all of his terrifying glory before he starts tearing through the Rebels like a monster in a horror movie. This minute long scene is one of the best Iāve seen this year and it alone made the ticket price worth it for me.
Overall, Rogue One was essentially what I thought it would be based on the trailers. I donāt personally understand the overblown critical fanfare that the movie is receiving, but Iām glad that Star Wars fans like it. There are many parts of the movie that could be considered polarizing, such as the lack of Vader scenes, the dodgy Tarkin CGI, the fact that the entire Rogue One squad is killed off at the end of the movie, the absence of an opening crawl and Forest Whittakerās raspy voice, which admittedly takes a bit of getting used to. Some of these elements I loved and some I hated, but for the most part this is an enjoyable addition to the Star Wars saga, I love how well it ties into and sets up the events of the films following this one and it was an added bonus that they actually resolved some of the original trilogyās flaws. As I said earlier, I still prefer The Force Awakens to this, but I can see how an argument could be made for this one being a better movie.
This movie for the most part impressed me. I loved how well it tied into A New Hope and how it actually fixed that movieās biggest plothole by explaining that the weak point in the Death Star was installed on purpose by Galen Erso while designing the battle station under the Empireās thumb, so that the Rebels would have a chance to destroy it. I loved how the movie had the balls to kills off the entire crew of the Rogue One team at the end of the movie and that corridor scene at the end with Vader was possibly the best scene Iāve seen in the cinema this year, itās definitely up there with the airport scene in Civil War. Those are the stand out positives of the movie for me, however there were also a few flaws throughout the film.
First of all, that Grand Mof Tarkin CGI recreation of Peter Cushing was awful, the whole thing looked like a character from the Star Wars animated series. When he is first introduced it is through a glass reflection on a window he is looking out of and in that part of the scene it was fairly convincing, however he then turns around and the camera moves to a medium close up shot and all of a sudden it feels like watching a video game cutscene. Guy Henry was the actor who did the motion capture for Tarkin and that actor actually looks relatively similar to Peter Cushing, so why they didnāt just apply some makeup to Guy Henry and dye his hair gray to resemble Cushing more and recast the Tarkin role is a mystery to me, it would have also been a lot cheaper than the method that they went with. Either that or he should have only been seen in the reflection of the glass, since that was the only time that the CGI effect actually looked convincing. However, I did think that the CGI recreation of 1970ās Carrie Fischer at the end of the movie was very convincing and if it wasnāt for the movement in her mouth, I wouldnāt have known that was a CGI character. Another flaw I had with the movie was the how rushed and choppy the first act was, the characters were all introduced quickly and vaguely, then it took them ages to actually form up as a team. I get that introducing a whole cast of brand new characters in a short space of time isnāt easy, but Tarantino pulls it off in Hateful 8 and Inglorious Bastards and it works a lot better than it works here.
In a lot of ways Rogue One is a contrast to Force Awakens. In Force Awakens, the plot was essentially the same as A New Hope and was a fairly by the book, traditional Star Wars story, but the characters were what made that movie, if Poe Dameron, Rey, Finn, Kylo Ren, Han and Chewie werenāt as well written, that movie would have been mediocre at best. In Rogue One, the characters are pretty shallow and underdeveloped and they are introduced quickly and by the end of the movie none of them have really had a proper character arc. However that is not what this movie is about, this film is about a team of people coming together in order to complete a task to set up the events of the original trilogy and in that sense this movie does what it sets out to do. An example of this is the robot character K2SO, who I thought was going to start off with no humanity, then over the course of the movie realize the value of human life and then sacrifice himself for the greater good at the movieās climax, but it turns out that the only real reason that he is helping the Rebels, is because he has been programmed to do so. This I feel sums up the level of character development present in the movie and demonstrates that it is not necessary in the film as that isnāt the movieās purpose. What Force Awakens lacked in an original plot, it made up for in character development and what Rogue One lacks in character development, it makes up for in plot and setup, so both movies have their strengths and their flaws. Bearing in mind that I have only seen Rogue One once so far, I currently prefer Force Awakens to Rogue One, but then I prefer Return of the Jedi to Empire, so maybe thatās just me.
The writing moves the story along at a brisk pace, but it is effective in that you are constantly kept aware of where we are and what is happening at least from the end of the first act onwards. The performances are also suitable to the characters in each role, but I wouldnāt say anyone was incredible, my personal favourite was Cassian, the Allianceās trigger finger who had shades of Han Solo thrown in as well. While watching Diego Lunaās performance, I actually thought he would be a good pick to play Nathan Drake in the Uncharted movie. The lighting in the film is well used and the CGI is spectacular for the most part other than weird waxwork Peter Cushing. The space battles are breathtaking and the action on the ground is also exciting.
Now, letās talk about the characters that werenāt part of the Rogue One team. Forest Whittaker and Mads Mikkelson are two of my favourite actors working in Hollywood today and they are both in this movie, but I feel that both could have been used more. When they are onscreen, they are brilliant, itās just a pity they make up such a small part of the movie. Whittaker appears only to be killed off minutes later and Mikkelson is only in two major scenes outside of a brief hologram appearance and then also gets killed off unceremoniously. The reason that a lot of people will go and see this movie however, will be to see Darth Vader. He isnāt in the movie much, but when he is it is fantastic. All of this reminds me a lot of Edwardsā last movie Godzilla, where Bryan Cranston and the monster were clearly the best parts of that movie, but for some reason were hardly in the thing. Itās as if Edwards has this idea in his head that less is always more and if he doesnāt show what people want to see in the movie for more than a few minutes at a time, then he is being original and artistic. While I understand this way of thinking from an auteur perspective, itās fucking Star Wars and Godzilla mate, just give the people what they want. It is far less of an issue here however, since the rest of the cast in Rogue One are far more compelling than the rest of the cast in Godzilla.
Anyway, back to Vader. We first see Vader when Krennic goes to see him in his Imperial Castle in Mustafar, the same location that he was relieved of his limbs and burnt alive in a pool of lava. The way he is introduced is awesome, when Krennic arrives one of Vaderās cloaked minions enters a large room containing an ominous bacta tank, which we see Vader floating in without his suit on. This is the most vulnerable we have ever seen Vader since we saw him getting his suit fitted for the first time in Revenge Of The Sith. The tank empties and we see Vaderās stumps where his arms and legs once were and we see the burnt skin that covers his torso. Then we cut to him in full costume, complete with the classic James Earl Jones voice and force choking Krennic. He then disappears again for most of the movie, until the second to last scene where he is at his most powerful and this could genuinely be my favourite Vader scene of all time, perhaps even beating the infamous, āI am your father,ā scene from Empire. Vader in this scene is pure raw anger and power and the way the scene is shot and lit is fucking perfect, the audio and the editing fantastic also. The scene opens with a dark corridor with Rebels scrambling to get the hard drive containing the Death Star plans to the other end of the corridor and onto the ship that Leia is on, so that she can go on to get the plans into R2 in order to kick off A New Hopeās events. At first you wonder why the Rebels are in such a panic then you hear the terrifying breathing from Vaderās suit, but he still isnāt shown. Then the first and only lightsaber in the movie is sparked and it illuminates Vader in all of his terrifying glory before he starts tearing through the Rebels like a monster in a horror movie. This minute long scene is one of the best Iāve seen this year and it alone made the ticket price worth it for me.
Overall, Rogue One was essentially what I thought it would be based on the trailers. I donāt personally understand the overblown critical fanfare that the movie is receiving, but Iām glad that Star Wars fans like it. There are many parts of the movie that could be considered polarizing, such as the lack of Vader scenes, the dodgy Tarkin CGI, the fact that the entire Rogue One squad is killed off at the end of the movie, the absence of an opening crawl and Forest Whittakerās raspy voice, which admittedly takes a bit of getting used to. Some of these elements I loved and some I hated, but for the most part this is an enjoyable addition to the Star Wars saga, I love how well it ties into and sets up the events of the films following this one and it was an added bonus that they actually resolved some of the original trilogyās flaws. As I said earlier, I still prefer The Force Awakens to this, but I can see how an argument could be made for this one being a better movie.
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018
Apes...together...strong!
The recent revival of the Apes franchise has managed to defy all expectations by not only being a worthy entry into the franchise, but also being strong films on their own merit. Working as a kind-of-prequel-reboot of the old franchise, and ignoring the Tim Burton film completely, it is strange to realise this is only the third film since the reboot. Lesser franchises would have churned out one every year or two, and be up to part five by now, but not the Apes films. It genuinely feels like they are taking time to ensure each film is worthy. Which is where another expectation is defied ā the films donāt seem to diminish in quality, nor feel repetitive. Each entry so far has had its own feel and worked to move the story along. War for the Planet of the Apes is no exception, and is one of the finest blockbuster films of this year.
It has been 15 years since the events of the first film, and the release of the Simian Flu virus that wiped out a large percentage of humanity. The events of the second film saw the start of conflict between the apes and humans, instigated by Koba who defied Caesarās leadership. Now, humanity are hunting down the apes, with one Colonel (Woody Harrelson) in particular striving to wipe them out entirely. When that Colonel attacks Caesarās tribe, killing those close to him, it sets the ape leader off on a personal revenge journey, with only a few of his most loyal followers supporting him on the way. However, along the way they encounter two new recruits, an ape hermit who has also developed speech, and a young human girl who is showing signs of a new strain of the Simian virus.
It is a testament to the motion captured performances and the quality of the CGI on offer that at no point during the film do you not believe that the apes on screen are real. Thereās a line in the film where Harrelsonās Colonel comments on how human looking Caesarās eyes are, and whilst you could see that in the context of the film seriesā arc (apes are becoming the new rulers, usurping humanity, and so are becoming more human), you can also see it as a nod to how the āuncanny valleyā dead-eye stare that plagues CGI in film is entirely absent here. Indeed, given that every scene in this relatively moderate $150million budget film is an effect shot, as apes are present throughout, it is jaw dropping that it looks a far more polished film than, for example, the $265million budgeted Rogue One ā a film which tried desperately with two key CGI characters and failed so hard in the brief screen time they had. Over all the Apes series has impressed with the effects work, but here it is pretty much flawless.
But it isnāt all about the effects. In fact the action-packed film the trailers seemed to hint at is instead a thoughtful, character-driven revenge journey, with only short bursts of action. This is Caesarās dark-journey of the soul, the end result of his attempts to live a peaceful co-existence with a humanity that fears him and his kind. Many comparisons can be drawn to films such as Apocalypse Now (something the film is aware of and manages to drop a reference to as a result), where a troubled individual, tired of war, seeks a crazed Colonel who is amassing his own army for an unknown purpose. The two core leads in their respective roles give their all. Serkis acting to a high degree, and giving genuine life to Caesar, and Harrelson gone completely Brando in his part, menacing without being overbearing.
The journey itself is a compelling story, and the support characters, some who we already know (Maurice, Luca and Rocket) acting as the conscience and the advisers to the troubled Caesar. The new additions, Amiah Millerās war orphan who Maurice adopts on their journey, and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn) offer heart and comic relief respectively. The comic timing is perfectly placed, never feeling forced, and being deftly used to offer a glimmer of hope and joy in what is otherwise a very dark tale.
The film, overall, nicely rounds out the trilogy, whilst still leaving room for future films down the line. Matt Reevesā direction makes effective use of his cast and settings, whilst the score by Michael Giacchino has grown more āape-inspiredā since he scored the previous film, reflecting in its drums and pipes the more primate nature manner the world is taking as technology and humanity dwindles.
āApes together strong!ā is Caesarās mantra. Indeed, all three Apes films, when viewed together, can be seen as one impressive, strong story, with a genuine progression throughout. A third film in a franchise usually derails and loses the way. Not here as this is one of the finest examples of intelligent blockbuster that you will find.
It has been 15 years since the events of the first film, and the release of the Simian Flu virus that wiped out a large percentage of humanity. The events of the second film saw the start of conflict between the apes and humans, instigated by Koba who defied Caesarās leadership. Now, humanity are hunting down the apes, with one Colonel (Woody Harrelson) in particular striving to wipe them out entirely. When that Colonel attacks Caesarās tribe, killing those close to him, it sets the ape leader off on a personal revenge journey, with only a few of his most loyal followers supporting him on the way. However, along the way they encounter two new recruits, an ape hermit who has also developed speech, and a young human girl who is showing signs of a new strain of the Simian virus.
It is a testament to the motion captured performances and the quality of the CGI on offer that at no point during the film do you not believe that the apes on screen are real. Thereās a line in the film where Harrelsonās Colonel comments on how human looking Caesarās eyes are, and whilst you could see that in the context of the film seriesā arc (apes are becoming the new rulers, usurping humanity, and so are becoming more human), you can also see it as a nod to how the āuncanny valleyā dead-eye stare that plagues CGI in film is entirely absent here. Indeed, given that every scene in this relatively moderate $150million budget film is an effect shot, as apes are present throughout, it is jaw dropping that it looks a far more polished film than, for example, the $265million budgeted Rogue One ā a film which tried desperately with two key CGI characters and failed so hard in the brief screen time they had. Over all the Apes series has impressed with the effects work, but here it is pretty much flawless.
But it isnāt all about the effects. In fact the action-packed film the trailers seemed to hint at is instead a thoughtful, character-driven revenge journey, with only short bursts of action. This is Caesarās dark-journey of the soul, the end result of his attempts to live a peaceful co-existence with a humanity that fears him and his kind. Many comparisons can be drawn to films such as Apocalypse Now (something the film is aware of and manages to drop a reference to as a result), where a troubled individual, tired of war, seeks a crazed Colonel who is amassing his own army for an unknown purpose. The two core leads in their respective roles give their all. Serkis acting to a high degree, and giving genuine life to Caesar, and Harrelson gone completely Brando in his part, menacing without being overbearing.
The journey itself is a compelling story, and the support characters, some who we already know (Maurice, Luca and Rocket) acting as the conscience and the advisers to the troubled Caesar. The new additions, Amiah Millerās war orphan who Maurice adopts on their journey, and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn) offer heart and comic relief respectively. The comic timing is perfectly placed, never feeling forced, and being deftly used to offer a glimmer of hope and joy in what is otherwise a very dark tale.
The film, overall, nicely rounds out the trilogy, whilst still leaving room for future films down the line. Matt Reevesā direction makes effective use of his cast and settings, whilst the score by Michael Giacchino has grown more āape-inspiredā since he scored the previous film, reflecting in its drums and pipes the more primate nature manner the world is taking as technology and humanity dwindles.
āApes together strong!ā is Caesarās mantra. Indeed, all three Apes films, when viewed together, can be seen as one impressive, strong story, with a genuine progression throughout. A third film in a franchise usually derails and loses the way. Not here as this is one of the finest examples of intelligent blockbuster that you will find.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Tim Burton and the flying elephant
If you had told me 15 years ago that Tim Burton would be directing a live-action adaptation of Disneyās classic, Dumbo I wouldāve been overwhelmed with excitement. The director, famed for his unique sense of gothic style and visual flair has directed some of the best films ever made.
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and thereās a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephantās good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction ā bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephantās magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
Weāll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burtonās previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burtonās previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the filmās weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrellās Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesnāt get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holtās curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that sheās an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Greenās horrific French accent.
Then thereās Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as heās abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, theyāre ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park thatās a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonkaās Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick ā it just doesnāt fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumboās separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride thatās spoilt by Burtonās once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and thereās a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephantās good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction ā bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephantās magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
Weāll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burtonās previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burtonās previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the filmās weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrellās Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesnāt get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holtās curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that sheās an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Greenās horrific French accent.
Then thereās Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as heās abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, theyāre ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park thatās a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonkaās Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick ā it just doesnāt fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumboās separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride thatās spoilt by Burtonās once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/