Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated See No Evil (2006) in Movies
Feb 21, 2021
See No Evil is a whole big mixed bag of average. The first 20-25 minutes are abhorrently terrible. It manages to tick every mid-00s horror cliché in its opening scene. It introduces all of its eye rollingly awful characters with edgy freeze frames and name cards.
Beyond the opening third, the whole film is riddled with seizure inducing quick zoom edits, and music video quality effects, and the whole runtime is draped in a durgy shit-shaded sepia tone. The characters never become remotely likable and suffer through the cringey dialogue without any sort of reprieve, and the worst one of the bunch even survives to the end credits, which is deeply upsetting.
Despite all of this however, I don't completely hate it. The gore for one is pretty solid, and looks mostly practical which is a huge bonus considering the era (and if you completely ignore the gratuitous spaffing of atrocious CGI during the final sequence). Glenn Jacobs, better known as WWE's Kane, cuts an imposing figure as the brutal as fuck villain, and I enjoyed the plots obvious homage to Friday the 13th. It's also mercifully clocks in just shy of 90 minutes, which makes it ideal for a quick dose of bloody horror if that's what you're after.
There are a huge amount of piss poor elements to See No Evil but it's certainly not the worst slasher out there. It's very typical of it's time, so it delivers exactly what you would expect and is definitely the best WWE produced film I've seen - the other being Leprechaun Origins, so not exactly a huge feat, but hey, let's take the wins where we can...
Beyond the opening third, the whole film is riddled with seizure inducing quick zoom edits, and music video quality effects, and the whole runtime is draped in a durgy shit-shaded sepia tone. The characters never become remotely likable and suffer through the cringey dialogue without any sort of reprieve, and the worst one of the bunch even survives to the end credits, which is deeply upsetting.
Despite all of this however, I don't completely hate it. The gore for one is pretty solid, and looks mostly practical which is a huge bonus considering the era (and if you completely ignore the gratuitous spaffing of atrocious CGI during the final sequence). Glenn Jacobs, better known as WWE's Kane, cuts an imposing figure as the brutal as fuck villain, and I enjoyed the plots obvious homage to Friday the 13th. It's also mercifully clocks in just shy of 90 minutes, which makes it ideal for a quick dose of bloody horror if that's what you're after.
There are a huge amount of piss poor elements to See No Evil but it's certainly not the worst slasher out there. It's very typical of it's time, so it delivers exactly what you would expect and is definitely the best WWE produced film I've seen - the other being Leprechaun Origins, so not exactly a huge feat, but hey, let's take the wins where we can...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Wishmaster (1997) in Movies
Sep 25, 2020
Robert Kurtzman, Wes Craven, and Greg Nicotero - a match made in heaven surely? Not quite it turns out, but almost. For all it's cheesiness and cheap jump scares, Wishmaster is still a load of fun, with some fantastic practical effects and a handful of big name horror cameos.
The effects are what stand out the most - there are some shitty CGI moments spread about but the majority of the gory moments are practical and rightly disgusting. A mere two minutes in, some poor fuckers skeleton becomes sentient and rips out from his body. It's glorious. Other than that, Wishmaster coasts along on the strength of its villain, The Djinn, played by Andrew Divoff. He's suitably creepy both in human form and in full make up, and gives the film a whole heap of credit, even if the way he pronounces stuff becomes a little grating after a while.
Having Wes Craven as a producer clearly pays off, as multiple horror stalwarts pop up throughout the runtime - Robert Englund, Tony Todd, Kane Hodder, Ted Raimi - some top tier cameos for sure. Even Angus Scrimm pops up to do a bit of narrating!
Everything else is a little lackluster. The premise is ok, but full of holes, and the ending feels like a bit of a cop out, and lead actress Tammy Lauren just seems like she's in the wrong film for the most part.
Wishmaster unfortunately never manages to excel above it's ridiculous opening scene, and is pretty mediocre overall, but it still has a lot to offer to horror fans, and I can't help but enjoy it.
The effects are what stand out the most - there are some shitty CGI moments spread about but the majority of the gory moments are practical and rightly disgusting. A mere two minutes in, some poor fuckers skeleton becomes sentient and rips out from his body. It's glorious. Other than that, Wishmaster coasts along on the strength of its villain, The Djinn, played by Andrew Divoff. He's suitably creepy both in human form and in full make up, and gives the film a whole heap of credit, even if the way he pronounces stuff becomes a little grating after a while.
Having Wes Craven as a producer clearly pays off, as multiple horror stalwarts pop up throughout the runtime - Robert Englund, Tony Todd, Kane Hodder, Ted Raimi - some top tier cameos for sure. Even Angus Scrimm pops up to do a bit of narrating!
Everything else is a little lackluster. The premise is ok, but full of holes, and the ending feels like a bit of a cop out, and lead actress Tammy Lauren just seems like she's in the wrong film for the most part.
Wishmaster unfortunately never manages to excel above it's ridiculous opening scene, and is pretty mediocre overall, but it still has a lot to offer to horror fans, and I can't help but enjoy it.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated 300 (2007) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
There's a few Zack Snyder films that I genuinely like, and 300 is one of them. It's 100% style over substance, it's overly gratuitous in the sheer amount of slow motion, but it's pretty enjoyable.
Some of the shots are expertly crafted recreations of the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, and as such, is a damn faithful adaption of a cult classic comic series.
The visual effects are stunning at times, and the sepia tone it's draped in lends a lot to its overall feel (even if it's a subject of criticism from many)
Gerard Butler takes the lead as King Leonidas of Sparta, in what has arguably become his most well known roll in the years following. It's easy to look over his thick Scottish accent (in ancient Greece...) when he's playing the character with such enthusiasm. Most of his lines have become highly quotable, even familiar to those who have never seen the film. 300 would be a much lesser film without his involvement.
Rodrigo Santoro carves a striking figure as primary antagonist Xerxes, his androgynous look and demonic-like voice providing a memorable villain.
The cast is rounded out by the likes of Lena Headey, David Wenham, Dominic West, and an early role for Michael Fassbender, a sturdy ensemble cast.
The set pieces are pretty thrilling, and results in a movie that blurs the fantastical, with a real life historic battle. It's an interesting mix that works well.
300 is a film that throws big sloppy buckets of testosterone at its audience, whilst simultaneously flaunting a silly amount of homoerotic undertones and CGI pectoral muscles, and it's great.
Some of the shots are expertly crafted recreations of the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, and as such, is a damn faithful adaption of a cult classic comic series.
The visual effects are stunning at times, and the sepia tone it's draped in lends a lot to its overall feel (even if it's a subject of criticism from many)
Gerard Butler takes the lead as King Leonidas of Sparta, in what has arguably become his most well known roll in the years following. It's easy to look over his thick Scottish accent (in ancient Greece...) when he's playing the character with such enthusiasm. Most of his lines have become highly quotable, even familiar to those who have never seen the film. 300 would be a much lesser film without his involvement.
Rodrigo Santoro carves a striking figure as primary antagonist Xerxes, his androgynous look and demonic-like voice providing a memorable villain.
The cast is rounded out by the likes of Lena Headey, David Wenham, Dominic West, and an early role for Michael Fassbender, a sturdy ensemble cast.
The set pieces are pretty thrilling, and results in a movie that blurs the fantastical, with a real life historic battle. It's an interesting mix that works well.
300 is a film that throws big sloppy buckets of testosterone at its audience, whilst simultaneously flaunting a silly amount of homoerotic undertones and CGI pectoral muscles, and it's great.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Wishmaster 2: Evil Never Dies (1999) in Movies
Oct 6, 2020
Alternative/goth female lead? Check. Atrocious CGI? Check. Casual homophobic slurs? Check. We are deep into shitty 90s straight-to-video territory here.
Wishmaster 2 is a big step down from the first film in almost every way. In its defense, it had a pretty small budget, but Christ it looks cheap. All of the characters are boring and under-developed, the lead character is somehow more irritating than the girl from the first Wishmaster, some of the acting on display is pretty horrific and the sound mix is just all over the place.
I found myself forgetting the general plot as I was watching it - what the fuck was that Russian gangster side plot all about?
If there are some positives to take from Wishmaster 2 (and believe me, there aren't many) then the best one is obviously Andrew Divoff, returning as The Djinn. He hams it up a storm, and provides the only entertainment value this movie has to offer. I will also say that the make up work on his demonic form looks pretty good.
Aside from that, there are a couple of good gore scenes, the guy forcing himself through the prison bars is a particularly gratuitous and bloody moment and the practical effects are decent enough, it's just that these fleeting moments of something resembling quality are few and far between. There's also a bit where a guy contorts his body to literally fuck himself, so there's that...
Overall then, Wishmaster 2 is pretty crap, which is a shame, as the flawed but entertaing first movie showed some franchise potential. Can't wait to put myself through Wishmaster 3 and 4....
Wishmaster 2 is a big step down from the first film in almost every way. In its defense, it had a pretty small budget, but Christ it looks cheap. All of the characters are boring and under-developed, the lead character is somehow more irritating than the girl from the first Wishmaster, some of the acting on display is pretty horrific and the sound mix is just all over the place.
I found myself forgetting the general plot as I was watching it - what the fuck was that Russian gangster side plot all about?
If there are some positives to take from Wishmaster 2 (and believe me, there aren't many) then the best one is obviously Andrew Divoff, returning as The Djinn. He hams it up a storm, and provides the only entertainment value this movie has to offer. I will also say that the make up work on his demonic form looks pretty good.
Aside from that, there are a couple of good gore scenes, the guy forcing himself through the prison bars is a particularly gratuitous and bloody moment and the practical effects are decent enough, it's just that these fleeting moments of something resembling quality are few and far between. There's also a bit where a guy contorts his body to literally fuck himself, so there's that...
Overall then, Wishmaster 2 is pretty crap, which is a shame, as the flawed but entertaing first movie showed some franchise potential. Can't wait to put myself through Wishmaster 3 and 4....
Kim Pook (101 KP) rated Goosebumps (2015) in Movies
Dec 24, 2020
A mother and son move into their new home. Upon arrival Zack notices someone watching him but thinks nothing of it. He soon meets the person watching him and her dad who tells him to stay away from her.
One evening after hanging out with Hannah (the girl next door), Zack hears her screaming and her dad shouting at her. Worried, Zack calls the police but when they investigate hannahs dad claims that hannah had gone back to her mother's and the screaming was from the TV. Zack, however, is not buying this so he seeks help from a school mate and goes searching hannahs house. There they find a basement full of bear traps, a bookshelf full of locked Goosebumps books and of course Hannah. They unlock one of the books and an abominable snowman comes out of it jumanji style. After it's recaptured back into the book we learn that hannahs dad is R. L Stine, the author of Goosebumps and he explains about the books.
His most evil creation slappy opens all the books unleashing every monster he's ever created. It is now upto Stine and the teens to return them to their rightful place.
As a teen I loved Goosebumps and owned many of the books. I was really looking forward to this movie. Its definitely not one to take seriously and is very silly and cringy in places, and the CGI isn't the best but it is entertaining nonetheless. It gives you all the nostalgia from the books, though I was disappointed they didn't take the opportunity to use the theme tune from the show.
One evening after hanging out with Hannah (the girl next door), Zack hears her screaming and her dad shouting at her. Worried, Zack calls the police but when they investigate hannahs dad claims that hannah had gone back to her mother's and the screaming was from the TV. Zack, however, is not buying this so he seeks help from a school mate and goes searching hannahs house. There they find a basement full of bear traps, a bookshelf full of locked Goosebumps books and of course Hannah. They unlock one of the books and an abominable snowman comes out of it jumanji style. After it's recaptured back into the book we learn that hannahs dad is R. L Stine, the author of Goosebumps and he explains about the books.
His most evil creation slappy opens all the books unleashing every monster he's ever created. It is now upto Stine and the teens to return them to their rightful place.
As a teen I loved Goosebumps and owned many of the books. I was really looking forward to this movie. Its definitely not one to take seriously and is very silly and cringy in places, and the CGI isn't the best but it is entertaining nonetheless. It gives you all the nostalgia from the books, though I was disappointed they didn't take the opportunity to use the theme tune from the show.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Charlie's Angels (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2020
A poor reboot
I had little hopes for this film when it was released at the cinema as the trailer looked awful, and I'm afraid to say the trailer was an accurate representation of the film itself.
The great thing about this film was the cast. This really does have a stellar cast, however the problem is that they're criminally underutilised and let down by an awful screenplay. The only ones who come out of this relatively unscathed are Kristen Stewart (she gets the "fun" role) and Naomi Scott (who still suffers from the cliched new recruit character role). Even the great Patrick Stewart couldn't save this. The action itself is pretty second rate and rather dull, and whilst it fortunately doesn't go OTT on the CGI, the fighting is still a little clunky. And the plot is as ridiculous as you'd expect from a spy film like this, and as predictable.
I also have a bit of an issue with how they're trying to promote gender equality in this. I'm all for girl power, but it's being rammed down your throat here and it's a bit much. Every male character is portrayed to be a complete slime ball and is this really fair? I don't think so. It's a bit old fashioned to have every bloke as a bad guy and I think there are better ways to promote powerful women and equality.
Overall this was an entirely unnecessary reboot of this franchise. Whilst the previous reincarnations with Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu weren't great, they were at least better than this.
The great thing about this film was the cast. This really does have a stellar cast, however the problem is that they're criminally underutilised and let down by an awful screenplay. The only ones who come out of this relatively unscathed are Kristen Stewart (she gets the "fun" role) and Naomi Scott (who still suffers from the cliched new recruit character role). Even the great Patrick Stewart couldn't save this. The action itself is pretty second rate and rather dull, and whilst it fortunately doesn't go OTT on the CGI, the fighting is still a little clunky. And the plot is as ridiculous as you'd expect from a spy film like this, and as predictable.
I also have a bit of an issue with how they're trying to promote gender equality in this. I'm all for girl power, but it's being rammed down your throat here and it's a bit much. Every male character is portrayed to be a complete slime ball and is this really fair? I don't think so. It's a bit old fashioned to have every bloke as a bad guy and I think there are better ways to promote powerful women and equality.
Overall this was an entirely unnecessary reboot of this franchise. Whilst the previous reincarnations with Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu weren't great, they were at least better than this.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Void (2016) in Movies
Aug 10, 2020
I watched The Void with absolutely no prior knowledge of what it was, and what it is, is certainly...something.
The Void felt to me like a series of homages to other horror classics. The overall plot seems like an obvious nod to Prince of Darkness. The creature designs are reminiscent of The Thing, albeit with a sprinkling of Guillermo Del Toro. The climax reminded me sometimes of Hellraiser. One of the villains gave me Re-Animator vibes. All the while, there's a distinct Lovecraftian undercurrent from start to finish.
All of this is a good thing though. The Void never feels like it's ripping off any of these movies, but rather wearing it's heart on it's sleeve.
As mentioned above, the creature designs reminded me of The Thing. This is further bolstered by their nightmarish aesthetic, and the fantastic use of practical effects. In fact, there's very minimal use of CGI at all, something you don't see too often these days.
My only criticisms are aimed at the plot. It's starts off well enough, and evokes a feeling of tension and uncertainty, well realised by a decent cast. Before long however, it's clear that a lot is left open to audience interpretation. The fever dream approach to the filming style leaves you questioning what is real and what's not, a plot technique that I'm usually all for, although The Void is a film that I feel could have benefited from a little more explanation and resolve.
Overall though, it's a gory, entertaining horror creature-feature, that I would recommend watching, even if it's just the once.
The Void felt to me like a series of homages to other horror classics. The overall plot seems like an obvious nod to Prince of Darkness. The creature designs are reminiscent of The Thing, albeit with a sprinkling of Guillermo Del Toro. The climax reminded me sometimes of Hellraiser. One of the villains gave me Re-Animator vibes. All the while, there's a distinct Lovecraftian undercurrent from start to finish.
All of this is a good thing though. The Void never feels like it's ripping off any of these movies, but rather wearing it's heart on it's sleeve.
As mentioned above, the creature designs reminded me of The Thing. This is further bolstered by their nightmarish aesthetic, and the fantastic use of practical effects. In fact, there's very minimal use of CGI at all, something you don't see too often these days.
My only criticisms are aimed at the plot. It's starts off well enough, and evokes a feeling of tension and uncertainty, well realised by a decent cast. Before long however, it's clear that a lot is left open to audience interpretation. The fever dream approach to the filming style leaves you questioning what is real and what's not, a plot technique that I'm usually all for, although The Void is a film that I feel could have benefited from a little more explanation and resolve.
Overall though, it's a gory, entertaining horror creature-feature, that I would recommend watching, even if it's just the once.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Morbius (2022) in Movies
Apr 2, 2022
For better or for worse, Morbius is finally out and, well, it ain't anything to write home about, but it's not quite as piss poor as I'd been hearing.
I've always liked the Morbius character, a solid C-list villain of Blade and Spider-Man, but did he ever really need his own movie? Well evidently not. It's essentially a run-of-the-mill comic book adaption that feels like it belongs in the mid 2000s with Elektra and Daredevil. It's kind of like a less fun Venom. Jared Leto isn't too shabby in the title roll when he's onscreen by himself, but there's just no chemistry between anyone otherwise, rendering a lot of the runtime quite boring. The action scenes are the kind of predictable grey CGI orgies that we've come to expect by now, and it's difficult to make out what's even happening on some occasions. The CG itself is hit and miss. Morbius actually looks pretty decent for the most part, but Matt Smith's character looks like a reject from I Am Legend. The movie suffers from a lack of an R rating, with a lot of weird looking bloodless scenes where gore was clearly meant to be present. To top things off, it boasts a mid credits scene that at best, doesn't even try to make sense, and at worst, manages to cheapen the events of Marvel movies that have come before.
Honestly though, I didn't outright hate Morbius. There are certainly worse comic book adaptions out there, but I won't be in any rush to watch again. Sony insisted on pushing ahead with it, and ultimately could have done so much more.
I've always liked the Morbius character, a solid C-list villain of Blade and Spider-Man, but did he ever really need his own movie? Well evidently not. It's essentially a run-of-the-mill comic book adaption that feels like it belongs in the mid 2000s with Elektra and Daredevil. It's kind of like a less fun Venom. Jared Leto isn't too shabby in the title roll when he's onscreen by himself, but there's just no chemistry between anyone otherwise, rendering a lot of the runtime quite boring. The action scenes are the kind of predictable grey CGI orgies that we've come to expect by now, and it's difficult to make out what's even happening on some occasions. The CG itself is hit and miss. Morbius actually looks pretty decent for the most part, but Matt Smith's character looks like a reject from I Am Legend. The movie suffers from a lack of an R rating, with a lot of weird looking bloodless scenes where gore was clearly meant to be present. To top things off, it boasts a mid credits scene that at best, doesn't even try to make sense, and at worst, manages to cheapen the events of Marvel movies that have come before.
Honestly though, I didn't outright hate Morbius. There are certainly worse comic book adaptions out there, but I won't be in any rush to watch again. Sony insisted on pushing ahead with it, and ultimately could have done so much more.
David McK (3425 KP) rated Indiana jones and the dial of destiny (2023) in Movies
Jul 9, 2023 (Updated Aug 2, 2024)
Eels look like snakes? No they don't ...
Harrison Ford is over 80 now.
So fair play to him for returning to one of his most iconic roles, as Doctor Henry Jones Jr aka Indiana Jones, in what must surely by his swansong for that role.
And even more fair play for the film not making light of his age, but working it 'properly' into the plot (which has an absolute bonkers ending), with Jones - at one point - wondering aloud what he is even doing scaling a rock face at his age (and with mention made of the events of Temple of Doom in particular, at this point).
The whole prologue of the film - here, helmed by James Mangold instead of Spielberg - is set during the closing stages of World War II, and sees a CGI de-aged Ford battling Nazis in pursuit of a stolen relic, that leads him to the real McGuffin of the movie, the Dial of the title.
Jump forward to the late 60s, and Jones is retiring from academia when he is visited by the daughter of an old friend who wants his help in recovering said relic.
Initially hesitant - and following the breakup of his marriage to Marion, and, as we later discover, the fate of Mutt - Jones soon finds himself drawn back into the way of his old life.
For my money, this is better than Crystal Skull, with the the Dial as a McGuffin, 'suiting' Indiana Jones better than the sci-fi trappings of that earlier film, and with Phoebe Waller-Bridge a better foil than Shia LaBeouf.
Still not up there with the original trilogy, though.
So fair play to him for returning to one of his most iconic roles, as Doctor Henry Jones Jr aka Indiana Jones, in what must surely by his swansong for that role.
And even more fair play for the film not making light of his age, but working it 'properly' into the plot (which has an absolute bonkers ending), with Jones - at one point - wondering aloud what he is even doing scaling a rock face at his age (and with mention made of the events of Temple of Doom in particular, at this point).
The whole prologue of the film - here, helmed by James Mangold instead of Spielberg - is set during the closing stages of World War II, and sees a CGI de-aged Ford battling Nazis in pursuit of a stolen relic, that leads him to the real McGuffin of the movie, the Dial of the title.
Jump forward to the late 60s, and Jones is retiring from academia when he is visited by the daughter of an old friend who wants his help in recovering said relic.
Initially hesitant - and following the breakup of his marriage to Marion, and, as we later discover, the fate of Mutt - Jones soon finds himself drawn back into the way of his old life.
For my money, this is better than Crystal Skull, with the the Dial as a McGuffin, 'suiting' Indiana Jones better than the sci-fi trappings of that earlier film, and with Phoebe Waller-Bridge a better foil than Shia LaBeouf.
Still not up there with the original trilogy, though.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Star Wars goes western
Star Wars has had somewhat of a chequered history since turning over to the dark side, sorry, I mean Disney. You see, since LucasFilm was acquired by the House of Mouse there has been one Star Wars movie each year. The Force Awakens was good, if a little safe and The Last Jedi was brilliant, but incredibly divisive.
What’s been more exciting to see evolve however, is the Star Wars Story movies. Rogue One became my 2nd favourite film in the series after Empire with Godzilla director, Gareth Edwards proving to be a force to be reckoned with. Then, LEGO Movie directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller were hired to direct a Han Solo origins story and that got people very excited indeed.Fast forward a few months and they were unceremoniously dumped from the project during filming with veteran director Ron Howard brought in as their replacements. Howard’s name is a concerning one. He’s become something of a director-for-hire over the last decade: competent but not exemplary. Phew! Keeping up? Good.
The resulting film has been plagued by ballooning costs, expensive reshoots and rumours of on-set acting classes for some of the stars. It’s finally here, but are we looking at the first new generation Star Wars failure?
Young Han Solo (Alden Ehrenreich) finds adventure when he joins a gang of galactic smugglers, including a 196-year-old Wookie named Chewbacca. Indebted to the gangster Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany), the crew devises a daring plan to travel to the mining planet Kessel to steal a batch of valuable coaxium. In need of a fast ship, Solo meets Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), the suave owner of the perfect vessel for the dangerous mission — the Millennium Falcon.
Thankfully, and by nothing short of a miracle, Solo: A Star Wars Story is engaging, packed full of nostalgia and features an incredible ensemble cast. It’s not perfect by any means, but we’ll get on to that later.
Billed as a heist meets western kinda movie, Solo hits all the right beats to carefully straddle the line between those two genres. The writing is snappy, genuinely funny and engaging with all the cast members doing their fair share of the heavy lifting. Emilia Clarke is great as Solo’s love interest Qi’Ra and Woody Harrelson is as charming as ever in a role that could’ve been serviced by many 50-something actors who could do fancy stuff with a blaster.
It is in Donald Glover however that the film truly belongs. His Lando Calrissian is absolutely, unequivocally sublime. He channels his counterpart from Empire beautifully and you do feel like you’re watching a young Billy Dee Williams in action.
There is some striking imagery throughout the film with the western-style finale being absolutely superb
In fact, there are only two of the main cast members that fail to register in the way that they had clearly intended to do. One is Paul Bettany’s Dryden Vos; the Star Wars universe’s first real villain failure. Alas, it’s not the fault of Bettany. The part was originally written for a CGI motion capture performance but was changed at the last minute with reshoots being added for Bettany’s scenes.
The other, unfortunately, is Han Solo himself. Alden Ehrenreich definitely makes all the right noises. He’s cocky, arrogant, self-assured, just like Harrison Ford, but, for all of his effort, he just isn’t doing a Harrison Ford in this film. Now, that doesn’t ruin the movie as much as you might think it does, as it’s easy to just go along for the ride, but at no point in Solo’s run time did I think we were watching a young Harrison Ford in action. Ehrenreich is good, he’s just not that good.
Thankfully, what is that good is the cinematography. The action is staged beautifully, though I’m unsure as to whether this is Howard’s influence or the previous directors. There is some striking imagery throughout the film with the western-style finale being absolutely superb. The CGI is nicely integrated with animatronics and props, just like a Star Wars movie should be, and each of the set pieces is brimming with excitement.
One sequence in particular, involving the liberation of some slaves is really nicely filmed with a great colour palate and the much-marketed monorail heist is edge-of-your-seat stuff with cracking CGI.
Pacing is generally good, and at 135 minutes that is no easy win though things do drag a little about half way through. What is pleasing however, is how the bromance between Chewbacca and Han takes a backseat up until about 40 minutes before the end in which a familiar theme plays over the action: it’s spine-tingling in its simplicity. In fact, John Powell’s score is rousing when it needs to be and beautifully put together. A real match for John Williams’ classic orchestral soundtrack.
Overall, Solo: A Star Wars Story is better than it had any right to be. Whenever a film goes through such a turbulent production process, it’s always concerning that the final product will be somehow lesser in quality, but this isn’t the case here. It’s not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but as a continuation of the new Star Wars mantra under Disney, it’s a fitting entry and a great addition to the series.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/24/solo-a-star-wars-story-review-stars-wars-goes-western/
What’s been more exciting to see evolve however, is the Star Wars Story movies. Rogue One became my 2nd favourite film in the series after Empire with Godzilla director, Gareth Edwards proving to be a force to be reckoned with. Then, LEGO Movie directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller were hired to direct a Han Solo origins story and that got people very excited indeed.Fast forward a few months and they were unceremoniously dumped from the project during filming with veteran director Ron Howard brought in as their replacements. Howard’s name is a concerning one. He’s become something of a director-for-hire over the last decade: competent but not exemplary. Phew! Keeping up? Good.
The resulting film has been plagued by ballooning costs, expensive reshoots and rumours of on-set acting classes for some of the stars. It’s finally here, but are we looking at the first new generation Star Wars failure?
Young Han Solo (Alden Ehrenreich) finds adventure when he joins a gang of galactic smugglers, including a 196-year-old Wookie named Chewbacca. Indebted to the gangster Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany), the crew devises a daring plan to travel to the mining planet Kessel to steal a batch of valuable coaxium. In need of a fast ship, Solo meets Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), the suave owner of the perfect vessel for the dangerous mission — the Millennium Falcon.
Thankfully, and by nothing short of a miracle, Solo: A Star Wars Story is engaging, packed full of nostalgia and features an incredible ensemble cast. It’s not perfect by any means, but we’ll get on to that later.
Billed as a heist meets western kinda movie, Solo hits all the right beats to carefully straddle the line between those two genres. The writing is snappy, genuinely funny and engaging with all the cast members doing their fair share of the heavy lifting. Emilia Clarke is great as Solo’s love interest Qi’Ra and Woody Harrelson is as charming as ever in a role that could’ve been serviced by many 50-something actors who could do fancy stuff with a blaster.
It is in Donald Glover however that the film truly belongs. His Lando Calrissian is absolutely, unequivocally sublime. He channels his counterpart from Empire beautifully and you do feel like you’re watching a young Billy Dee Williams in action.
There is some striking imagery throughout the film with the western-style finale being absolutely superb
In fact, there are only two of the main cast members that fail to register in the way that they had clearly intended to do. One is Paul Bettany’s Dryden Vos; the Star Wars universe’s first real villain failure. Alas, it’s not the fault of Bettany. The part was originally written for a CGI motion capture performance but was changed at the last minute with reshoots being added for Bettany’s scenes.
The other, unfortunately, is Han Solo himself. Alden Ehrenreich definitely makes all the right noises. He’s cocky, arrogant, self-assured, just like Harrison Ford, but, for all of his effort, he just isn’t doing a Harrison Ford in this film. Now, that doesn’t ruin the movie as much as you might think it does, as it’s easy to just go along for the ride, but at no point in Solo’s run time did I think we were watching a young Harrison Ford in action. Ehrenreich is good, he’s just not that good.
Thankfully, what is that good is the cinematography. The action is staged beautifully, though I’m unsure as to whether this is Howard’s influence or the previous directors. There is some striking imagery throughout the film with the western-style finale being absolutely superb. The CGI is nicely integrated with animatronics and props, just like a Star Wars movie should be, and each of the set pieces is brimming with excitement.
One sequence in particular, involving the liberation of some slaves is really nicely filmed with a great colour palate and the much-marketed monorail heist is edge-of-your-seat stuff with cracking CGI.
Pacing is generally good, and at 135 minutes that is no easy win though things do drag a little about half way through. What is pleasing however, is how the bromance between Chewbacca and Han takes a backseat up until about 40 minutes before the end in which a familiar theme plays over the action: it’s spine-tingling in its simplicity. In fact, John Powell’s score is rousing when it needs to be and beautifully put together. A real match for John Williams’ classic orchestral soundtrack.
Overall, Solo: A Star Wars Story is better than it had any right to be. Whenever a film goes through such a turbulent production process, it’s always concerning that the final product will be somehow lesser in quality, but this isn’t the case here. It’s not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but as a continuation of the new Star Wars mantra under Disney, it’s a fitting entry and a great addition to the series.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/24/solo-a-star-wars-story-review-stars-wars-goes-western/