Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Da 5 Bloods (2020) in Movies
Jun 19, 2020
Delroy Lindo shines in a mostly good film
Over the years, I have become a fan of Spike Lee. I think he has a singular vision as a filmmaker with his films putting a spotlight on the black experience and the prejudices and injustices that prevail.
DA 5 BLOODS - Lee's Vietnam War movie - is no exception.
Set in present(ish) day and in the memories of the main characters from their time "in country", DA 5 BLOODS tells the tale of 4 Vietnam Veterans who return to find the body of their squadron leader - and the gold that they buried under his body.
Part Vietnam war flick, part gold heist (and the cost of this theft on the hearts and minds of the participants) and part reflection on the treatment of the black soldiers, Lee reaches high to combine 3 separate - and complex - films into one (any one of which could have been a film of their own) and it is here that this films succeeds - and fails. For this film is at moments riveting, at moments unflinching and hard to watch, at moments confusing and at moments...surprisingly... dull. Spike had a lot of movie to tell and he took 2 and a 1/2 hours to tell it. He would have been better suited to cut some of this down to a more palatable 2-ish hour length. The film bogs down on itself at times.
But when it crackles - it crackles. Especially when the 4 veteran soldiers interact with each other. Led by the great Delroy Lindo (TV's THE GOOD FIGHT). I hope that this film gets a theatrical release sometime (to make it eligible for the Oscars) for Lindo's portrayal of MAGA Hat wearing, PTSD suffering Paul is powerful and captivating. I was riveted by his performance and I was willing to follow him to the ends of the Earth. Also standing out is Clarke Peters as Otis - the heart and soul of this group and Norm Lewis, the pigeon-toed Eddie who has a secret that he is hiding. Both of these characters shine at moments - but are not in the spotlight nearly often enough. The same can be said for Isaih Whitlock Jr as Melvin, a character that is undeserved until the end and by then I felt myself wanting more of him. (Side Note: Lee named these characters after members of THE TEMPTATIONS).
Lee makes an interesting choice in the flashback scenes of the war. Instead of casting younger actors or spending the $$ on "de-aging" the actors (Lee would say that the de-aging was "cost prohibitive"), Lee chooses to have these old guys just play their younger versions of themselves just as they are now, claiming that these are not flashbacks, but "memories" of these soldiers - and I gotta admit that this tactic works very, very well - especially when these 4 older gentlemen are in the Vietnam War scenes with their Platoon Leader played, charismatically, by the much younger Chadwick Boseman. His character is killed in action and since these scenes are memories, it works well that he is younger (he never got a chance to grow old) while all the others are older. Boseman has a an attraction to him that helps the audience buy into the fact that all these years later these 4 men still hold him front and center in their memories. Unfortunately, the combat scenes looks to me like they were done on a shoe-string budget, so Lee has to use "tricks" to pull these scenes off and these tricks bring these scenes down a peg.
As I've stated, this film is really 3 films in one and the effects of the gold on the men is the most interesting part of this film for me, it touches on the desires of the human soul and brings some of the strongest acting and emotions.
This being a Spike Lee joint, this film is peppered with scenes from the black experience - from Martin Luther KIng to Malcom X to "Hanoi Hannah" telling the black troops that their country is abandoning them. These are important events in the lives and psyche of these men (and African Americans) and Mr. Lee is uniquely positioned to bring the attention of the public to these events, and he does it well.
DA 5 BLOODS in now streaming on Netflix.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
DA 5 BLOODS - Lee's Vietnam War movie - is no exception.
Set in present(ish) day and in the memories of the main characters from their time "in country", DA 5 BLOODS tells the tale of 4 Vietnam Veterans who return to find the body of their squadron leader - and the gold that they buried under his body.
Part Vietnam war flick, part gold heist (and the cost of this theft on the hearts and minds of the participants) and part reflection on the treatment of the black soldiers, Lee reaches high to combine 3 separate - and complex - films into one (any one of which could have been a film of their own) and it is here that this films succeeds - and fails. For this film is at moments riveting, at moments unflinching and hard to watch, at moments confusing and at moments...surprisingly... dull. Spike had a lot of movie to tell and he took 2 and a 1/2 hours to tell it. He would have been better suited to cut some of this down to a more palatable 2-ish hour length. The film bogs down on itself at times.
But when it crackles - it crackles. Especially when the 4 veteran soldiers interact with each other. Led by the great Delroy Lindo (TV's THE GOOD FIGHT). I hope that this film gets a theatrical release sometime (to make it eligible for the Oscars) for Lindo's portrayal of MAGA Hat wearing, PTSD suffering Paul is powerful and captivating. I was riveted by his performance and I was willing to follow him to the ends of the Earth. Also standing out is Clarke Peters as Otis - the heart and soul of this group and Norm Lewis, the pigeon-toed Eddie who has a secret that he is hiding. Both of these characters shine at moments - but are not in the spotlight nearly often enough. The same can be said for Isaih Whitlock Jr as Melvin, a character that is undeserved until the end and by then I felt myself wanting more of him. (Side Note: Lee named these characters after members of THE TEMPTATIONS).
Lee makes an interesting choice in the flashback scenes of the war. Instead of casting younger actors or spending the $$ on "de-aging" the actors (Lee would say that the de-aging was "cost prohibitive"), Lee chooses to have these old guys just play their younger versions of themselves just as they are now, claiming that these are not flashbacks, but "memories" of these soldiers - and I gotta admit that this tactic works very, very well - especially when these 4 older gentlemen are in the Vietnam War scenes with their Platoon Leader played, charismatically, by the much younger Chadwick Boseman. His character is killed in action and since these scenes are memories, it works well that he is younger (he never got a chance to grow old) while all the others are older. Boseman has a an attraction to him that helps the audience buy into the fact that all these years later these 4 men still hold him front and center in their memories. Unfortunately, the combat scenes looks to me like they were done on a shoe-string budget, so Lee has to use "tricks" to pull these scenes off and these tricks bring these scenes down a peg.
As I've stated, this film is really 3 films in one and the effects of the gold on the men is the most interesting part of this film for me, it touches on the desires of the human soul and brings some of the strongest acting and emotions.
This being a Spike Lee joint, this film is peppered with scenes from the black experience - from Martin Luther KIng to Malcom X to "Hanoi Hannah" telling the black troops that their country is abandoning them. These are important events in the lives and psyche of these men (and African Americans) and Mr. Lee is uniquely positioned to bring the attention of the public to these events, and he does it well.
DA 5 BLOODS in now streaming on Netflix.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
How many of these reviews are going to start with “Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?” A lot I am willing to bet. The thing is, it’s a good way to start. Bohemian Rhapsody has been a highly anticipated film for many years. I remember back when they were considering Johnny Depp for Freddie Mercury. Then it was Sasha Baren Cohen. And then they announced Rami Malek, and a majority of the country went, “Who?” Rami Malek is mostly known for his work as the lead in the USA Network series Mr. Robot. He got his start in the Night at the Museum series, and has scene big screen time in Need for Speed and, most recently, Papillion alongside Charlie Hunnam. I think it’s safe to say that after November 2, 2018, people will definitely know who he is.
Named for Queen’s most successful song in their portfolio, Bohemian Rhapsody tells the story of Freddie Mercury and how he rose from being a baggage boy at Heathrow, to a literal rock legend. We see how the band Queen was formed, how they got their name, how they made it big, and what made Queen… well Queen. Rami Malek delivers a powerful performance as the front man of the legendary band. For me, it started off a little shaky at first (coming from someone who is fan of Malek), but he quickly made the role his own and personified the late Mercury like no other can. Even Mercury’s own sister saw Malek in full costume and said, “There’s my Freddie.”
Not to downplay the rest of the cast. Rounding at the rest of the band is Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon, Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, and Gwilym Lee as Brian May. All delivered powerful performances in their own right, and the chemistry between the 4 actors is undeniable. Veterans Aidan Gillen (as John Reid) and Tom Hollander (Jim Beach) deliver in their supporting roles, as does Lucy Boynton, who played Mary Austin. If some of these names do not seem familiar, get ready to learn a lot of the background of Queen in their rise, fall, and then rise again. Also, Mike Myers makes an appearance for a fun cameo as Ray Foster.
Clearly a majority of the film’s score revolves around the band’s expansive portfolio. But it wasn’t just the in your face, obvious music that was there. They did a great job with subtle melodies or bars from the band’s repertoire hanging in the background of impactful scenes throughout the film. Sometimes you’ll miss it, sometimes it’s obvious, and sometimes it might just make you cry.
The story begins with Mercury meeting Taylor and May, and ends with the ever-famous Live-Aid in 1985. While the film is essentially a love-story dedicated to Mercury, I feel it may have left out the rest of the members of the band. We see May, Taylor and Deacon, but we know little about their outside lives other than fleeting statements about their wives and kids, and what they were studying in university prior to Queen taking off. It’s a shame because Queen was not just about Mercury. The film did a really good job stating this, showing how they all contribute, all support each other, and how they are all different. But the focus is still on one man. Queen, the rock band, is an entity. Not an individual. But, I understand the decision behind the path that was chosen. Mercury, to many, was the embodiment of Queen. I am just glad the movie did put out there that he didn’t feel that way.
All of that aside, this film was fantastic. I have been a fan of Queen since I was in diapers, despite a majority of the band’s career having taken place before I was born. It was good to see this story told on screen, though slightly dramatized at points. It was an excellent telling of the story, and people may learn a lot about Freddie Mercury, like his love of cats, and who the love of his life is. Unless you’re absolutely cold-hearted, expect to get goosebumps as you progress through the band’s rise to the top, and to laugh as you how they interacted and developed their music. The movie is not without flaws, but they are so minor that looking past them is easy. Enjoy the film. Enjoy the music. Rock on.
Named for Queen’s most successful song in their portfolio, Bohemian Rhapsody tells the story of Freddie Mercury and how he rose from being a baggage boy at Heathrow, to a literal rock legend. We see how the band Queen was formed, how they got their name, how they made it big, and what made Queen… well Queen. Rami Malek delivers a powerful performance as the front man of the legendary band. For me, it started off a little shaky at first (coming from someone who is fan of Malek), but he quickly made the role his own and personified the late Mercury like no other can. Even Mercury’s own sister saw Malek in full costume and said, “There’s my Freddie.”
Not to downplay the rest of the cast. Rounding at the rest of the band is Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon, Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, and Gwilym Lee as Brian May. All delivered powerful performances in their own right, and the chemistry between the 4 actors is undeniable. Veterans Aidan Gillen (as John Reid) and Tom Hollander (Jim Beach) deliver in their supporting roles, as does Lucy Boynton, who played Mary Austin. If some of these names do not seem familiar, get ready to learn a lot of the background of Queen in their rise, fall, and then rise again. Also, Mike Myers makes an appearance for a fun cameo as Ray Foster.
Clearly a majority of the film’s score revolves around the band’s expansive portfolio. But it wasn’t just the in your face, obvious music that was there. They did a great job with subtle melodies or bars from the band’s repertoire hanging in the background of impactful scenes throughout the film. Sometimes you’ll miss it, sometimes it’s obvious, and sometimes it might just make you cry.
The story begins with Mercury meeting Taylor and May, and ends with the ever-famous Live-Aid in 1985. While the film is essentially a love-story dedicated to Mercury, I feel it may have left out the rest of the members of the band. We see May, Taylor and Deacon, but we know little about their outside lives other than fleeting statements about their wives and kids, and what they were studying in university prior to Queen taking off. It’s a shame because Queen was not just about Mercury. The film did a really good job stating this, showing how they all contribute, all support each other, and how they are all different. But the focus is still on one man. Queen, the rock band, is an entity. Not an individual. But, I understand the decision behind the path that was chosen. Mercury, to many, was the embodiment of Queen. I am just glad the movie did put out there that he didn’t feel that way.
All of that aside, this film was fantastic. I have been a fan of Queen since I was in diapers, despite a majority of the band’s career having taken place before I was born. It was good to see this story told on screen, though slightly dramatized at points. It was an excellent telling of the story, and people may learn a lot about Freddie Mercury, like his love of cats, and who the love of his life is. Unless you’re absolutely cold-hearted, expect to get goosebumps as you progress through the band’s rise to the top, and to laugh as you how they interacted and developed their music. The movie is not without flaws, but they are so minor that looking past them is easy. Enjoy the film. Enjoy the music. Rock on.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated By The Sea (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have yet another film that strays from ‘the norm’. A film that not only stars one of the most beloved celebrity couples on the planet but also harkens back to the Italian dramatic films of the late 1960s/early 70s. It most definitely qualifies as an ‘art house’ film.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
A Comedy Classic
My daughter was flipping channels the other day and ran across the great 1984 Supernatural comedy GHOSTBUSTERS and stopped to watch for awhile. As happens with her generation, she eventually got more interested in her phone and friends and wandered away. Me? I was drawn back into this film so much so that I went downstairs, grabbed the DVD (yes, kids, I still own DVDs) and popped the film into my Home Theater System to give it a proper viewing.
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Overlord (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
You say zombie and I'm sold. No matter how serious they are they're still pretty funny, usually unintentionally. I'm not sure what it says about me when I laugh at someone fighting a zombie to the death/re-death but I can't help it... it's too daft not to!
I thought the trailer for Overlord was very good. Specifically the point where Boyce looks into that hole in the wall. We all knew there was something freaky in there and yet they didn't try and scare us with it. It certainly left me intrigued, but my main hope for this was that it would be better than Red-Con 1.
I enjoyed the retro feel opening sequence with the voice over. It really did go a long way to making the time period of the movie come across. But my joy was short lived because of the sheer volume of what came next. I could feel it in my stomach. Technically it was quite effective as I imagine it resembles the feeling of being in the plane quite well, but my god did it make me feel queasy. What then developed in this scene was incredibly difficult to watch, again, on point for what was happening but not ideal for the viewer. Almost everything happening on screen was rendered obsolete by the chaos.
This is then followed by a mid-air sequence that basically feels like audience participation. Boyce is in freefall. It's strange and fake... yes, I know it IS fake, but I've seen enough films do that sort of airborn story line to know it can produce great results.
Despite those issues his eventual arrival on solid ground rounds out the beginning of the film nicely.
Overlord does show one of my favourite movie character faux pas. Never have dreams. Bad things will happen to you. If you're in a life threatening situation give up on every hope you have for your future and just focus on making it through the next 2 hours of your life.
The supernatural side of the film presents you with two very different types of zombies. Chloe's aunt is a classic wheezing zombie, mooching around just being a little creepy, and the ones we encounter in the bunker are much more rage filled. Being that they are mostly born of experiments it makes me wonder if calling this a zombie movie is entirely accurate.
There is what I would call a classic take from a B-movie hidden within the German bunker. Part of me hopes that somewhere within the magic of movie timelines that this is actually the pre-cursor to Fiend Without A Face. But to be making any suggestions that this itself is a B-movie would be entirely misplaced.
The effects are generally well done. We see a transformation brought about by the German's serum which is the first time the characters have witnessed it. The only thing that let the scene down for me was the change of the character's actual character. That felt more unnatural than what happened to them.
Where there's good, there's also bad. The effect's are tainted by Two-Face. He makes a very creepy inclusion but because of the extent of the damage it looks a tad ridiculous in the action sequences. There were ways around it, they could have given him a different injury or a mask, but the latter would have possibly taken you into Captain America and Wonder Woman territory.
One thing I seriously think about this film is that they should make a second one. Not a sequel. Make this a second film. Keep Overlord as it is but also make a war film. Everything up until the creepy bits was a really solid start. It would only need a few tweaks to the bunker scenes to make them less sci-fi and the whole thing would make a great 15 certificate production.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, probably more of a lad's night out sort of thing. (I'm not trying to be sexist there, it was literally me and 14 blokes watching it.) It certainly doesn't feel like you completely wasted your time seeing it, so give it a go sometime.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
When it comes to zombies I'd much rather have Ed from Shaun Of The Dead than any of these ones, so if it's possible to get that serum concoction for super strength without the creepy side effects then I'll go for that please.
I thought the trailer for Overlord was very good. Specifically the point where Boyce looks into that hole in the wall. We all knew there was something freaky in there and yet they didn't try and scare us with it. It certainly left me intrigued, but my main hope for this was that it would be better than Red-Con 1.
I enjoyed the retro feel opening sequence with the voice over. It really did go a long way to making the time period of the movie come across. But my joy was short lived because of the sheer volume of what came next. I could feel it in my stomach. Technically it was quite effective as I imagine it resembles the feeling of being in the plane quite well, but my god did it make me feel queasy. What then developed in this scene was incredibly difficult to watch, again, on point for what was happening but not ideal for the viewer. Almost everything happening on screen was rendered obsolete by the chaos.
This is then followed by a mid-air sequence that basically feels like audience participation. Boyce is in freefall. It's strange and fake... yes, I know it IS fake, but I've seen enough films do that sort of airborn story line to know it can produce great results.
Despite those issues his eventual arrival on solid ground rounds out the beginning of the film nicely.
Overlord does show one of my favourite movie character faux pas. Never have dreams. Bad things will happen to you. If you're in a life threatening situation give up on every hope you have for your future and just focus on making it through the next 2 hours of your life.
The supernatural side of the film presents you with two very different types of zombies. Chloe's aunt is a classic wheezing zombie, mooching around just being a little creepy, and the ones we encounter in the bunker are much more rage filled. Being that they are mostly born of experiments it makes me wonder if calling this a zombie movie is entirely accurate.
There is what I would call a classic take from a B-movie hidden within the German bunker. Part of me hopes that somewhere within the magic of movie timelines that this is actually the pre-cursor to Fiend Without A Face. But to be making any suggestions that this itself is a B-movie would be entirely misplaced.
The effects are generally well done. We see a transformation brought about by the German's serum which is the first time the characters have witnessed it. The only thing that let the scene down for me was the change of the character's actual character. That felt more unnatural than what happened to them.
Where there's good, there's also bad. The effect's are tainted by Two-Face. He makes a very creepy inclusion but because of the extent of the damage it looks a tad ridiculous in the action sequences. There were ways around it, they could have given him a different injury or a mask, but the latter would have possibly taken you into Captain America and Wonder Woman territory.
One thing I seriously think about this film is that they should make a second one. Not a sequel. Make this a second film. Keep Overlord as it is but also make a war film. Everything up until the creepy bits was a really solid start. It would only need a few tweaks to the bunker scenes to make them less sci-fi and the whole thing would make a great 15 certificate production.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, probably more of a lad's night out sort of thing. (I'm not trying to be sexist there, it was literally me and 14 blokes watching it.) It certainly doesn't feel like you completely wasted your time seeing it, so give it a go sometime.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
When it comes to zombies I'd much rather have Ed from Shaun Of The Dead than any of these ones, so if it's possible to get that serum concoction for super strength without the creepy side effects then I'll go for that please.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated The Beguiled in Books
Jun 5, 2019
“A classic slice of Southern Gothic, shot through with psychological suspense, which is the basis for Sofia Coppola’s (winner of Best Director at Cannes) 2017 film of the same name starring Nicola Kidman, Colin Farrell and Kirsten Dunst”. Source: wiki/The_Beguiled_(2017_film).
The book was originally written with the title A Painted Devil and some of you eagle-eyed readers and film fanatics may also remember this was a film starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page in the ’70s. The maid in the latter film and this 1966 novel, was black and there was also another bi-racial character, too. However, in the new film, mentioned above, this bi-racial character was played by Kirsten Dunst. This totally ruined the whole point of the book that the black woman was really a slave in their household and the bi-racial woman (who was a free woman) could not seem to see that she herself was not truly white. And that, dear readers, is a very relevant part of the original book, why change it? (Rolls eyes). Is it so wrong to portray this black woman exactly how the author intended her to be? The way I see it, what she did in that house was her way of surviving. It’s an integral part of the story. Why hide it?
After all, if you look at the underage sex and the way the main male character acts by taking advantage of his position in a household full of young girls who are basically shut away from society, should he also be seen as wrong? These young girls are easy prey, but some, are also very willing to learn… Incidentally, I must say the heat and sexual tension within the book is superbly done.
I found parts of the way this was written to be a little repetitive and confusing in style, despite this, it was still a great story. It’s only told from the girls’ perspective, which in many ways adds to this atmospheric, hothouse of lies and deceit the further into the story you delve.
The Beguiled is chock full with a Gothic sense of foreboding and unease, set against a backdrop of the Civil War, which made for some serious, ghostly tension. Who is this injured solider who turns up on their doorstep? How can these girls protect themselves from this seductive man when they have no idea what life is like outside the four walls of the house they live in?
If you read right to the end you’ll find out the brilliant twist of fate this story has in store for you. A devious surprise!
The book was originally written with the title A Painted Devil and some of you eagle-eyed readers and film fanatics may also remember this was a film starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page in the ’70s. The maid in the latter film and this 1966 novel, was black and there was also another bi-racial character, too. However, in the new film, mentioned above, this bi-racial character was played by Kirsten Dunst. This totally ruined the whole point of the book that the black woman was really a slave in their household and the bi-racial woman (who was a free woman) could not seem to see that she herself was not truly white. And that, dear readers, is a very relevant part of the original book, why change it? (Rolls eyes). Is it so wrong to portray this black woman exactly how the author intended her to be? The way I see it, what she did in that house was her way of surviving. It’s an integral part of the story. Why hide it?
After all, if you look at the underage sex and the way the main male character acts by taking advantage of his position in a household full of young girls who are basically shut away from society, should he also be seen as wrong? These young girls are easy prey, but some, are also very willing to learn… Incidentally, I must say the heat and sexual tension within the book is superbly done.
I found parts of the way this was written to be a little repetitive and confusing in style, despite this, it was still a great story. It’s only told from the girls’ perspective, which in many ways adds to this atmospheric, hothouse of lies and deceit the further into the story you delve.
The Beguiled is chock full with a Gothic sense of foreboding and unease, set against a backdrop of the Civil War, which made for some serious, ghostly tension. Who is this injured solider who turns up on their doorstep? How can these girls protect themselves from this seductive man when they have no idea what life is like outside the four walls of the house they live in?
If you read right to the end you’ll find out the brilliant twist of fate this story has in store for you. A devious surprise!
Chelsee R Clawson (23 KP) rated Beautiful wreck in Books
Mar 18, 2018
Beautiful wreck. A beautiful book!
Step right up ladies and gents for the next time travelling extravaganza! Move over Jamie fraser Heirik's the new guy in town! With outlander on the continuous rise to the top it gives other time travel romances a good run for their money and rightly so who doesnt love jamie fraser and his swoon worthy quotes and fiery lingering gaze. He had me wanting to marry a fictional character from the get go!
Beautiful wreck by the not so well known author larissa brown deserves alot more attention and credit than it has been given. The story is about a woman named ginn who ends up travelling to tenth century iceland I've copied the description off the back of the book to give you a better taste of what the book is about;
In a bleak future built on virtual reality, Ginn is a romantic who yearns for something real. She designs environments for people who play at being Vikings. But when her project goes awry, she's stranded in the actual 10th century, on a storybook farm in Viking Iceland. Heirik is the young leader of his family, honored by the men and women who live on his land. But he is feared and isolated because of a terrible curse. Ginn and Heirik are two people who never thought they would find a home in someone else's heart. When forces rise against them to keep them apart, Ginn is called on to decide-- will she give up the brutal and beautiful reality of the past? Or will she have the courage to traverse time and become more of a Viking than she ever imagined?
Doesn't it sound awesome!? ?
Don't worry I'm not going to spoil the story but I will say that this book in my view is a high contender for the top spot in the time travel/ romance genre. it is so beautifully written and detailed that it feels like your actually there going through the trials and celebrations right along with ginn. It could also have something to do with my overactive imagination but I think it's the former in this case ? I will admit the ending seemed a little rushed, it could've had a bit more detailed but that is just my opinion. With the second book 'so wild a dream' following on in the series I'm not sure how it can get much better than beautiful wreck.
Overall an excellent and enjoyable read, this book will definitely be on my re-read list in the near future.
Beautiful wreck by the not so well known author larissa brown deserves alot more attention and credit than it has been given. The story is about a woman named ginn who ends up travelling to tenth century iceland I've copied the description off the back of the book to give you a better taste of what the book is about;
In a bleak future built on virtual reality, Ginn is a romantic who yearns for something real. She designs environments for people who play at being Vikings. But when her project goes awry, she's stranded in the actual 10th century, on a storybook farm in Viking Iceland. Heirik is the young leader of his family, honored by the men and women who live on his land. But he is feared and isolated because of a terrible curse. Ginn and Heirik are two people who never thought they would find a home in someone else's heart. When forces rise against them to keep them apart, Ginn is called on to decide-- will she give up the brutal and beautiful reality of the past? Or will she have the courage to traverse time and become more of a Viking than she ever imagined?
Doesn't it sound awesome!? ?
Don't worry I'm not going to spoil the story but I will say that this book in my view is a high contender for the top spot in the time travel/ romance genre. it is so beautifully written and detailed that it feels like your actually there going through the trials and celebrations right along with ginn. It could also have something to do with my overactive imagination but I think it's the former in this case ? I will admit the ending seemed a little rushed, it could've had a bit more detailed but that is just my opinion. With the second book 'so wild a dream' following on in the series I'm not sure how it can get much better than beautiful wreck.
Overall an excellent and enjoyable read, this book will definitely be on my re-read list in the near future.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Back in the 80’s, razor-fingered Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) became an iconic figure of horror and mainstream pop culture with the film “A Nightmare on Elm Street”. Thanks to great special effects, macabre humor, and the charismatic Freddy, audience flocked to theaters and launched a highly successful series that spanned several films. Eventually the series ran its course, but the title character remained a mainstay of horror fans everywhere. Last seen in “Freddy Vs. Jason”, the terror of teenagers’ dreams has returned in a new take on the film from the Platinum Dunes production team, the same team behind the successful relaunch of the “Friday the 13th Series”.
The new film stars Jackie Earl Haley as the title character, and once again he is dispatching the teens of Elm Street in all manner of bizzare and grisly fashions in their dreams. Soon the town is full of dead teens and their insomniac peers anxious for an answer to the madman. Their parents are no help as they are quick to downplay any questions about Freddy and quickly disregard any concerns raised by their kids, even when the body count continues to rise. As their numbers dwindle, a group of friends starts to uncover the reason behind the unresloved deaths and band together to solve the mystery of Freddy Krueger and survive.
Freddy is only able to menace the teens in their sleep, so they take all manner of precautions in an attempt to stay awake and plot a defense, but sleep is something one can only postpone, never fully avoid, which means Freddy is always lurking, just waiting for his chance to strike.
What follows is a fairly by-the-numbers horror film that is sadly is lacking much suspense and horror. I was a big fan of the series and I found myself wanting to watch the original Wes Craven classic rather than what was unfolding on the screen. Haley does a great job as Krueger, blending menace with gallows humor, but Englund left a very large Fedora and razor gloves to fill and Haley comes up lacking. I also missed the elaborate effects that defined the series, greatly underwhelmed by this film’s attempts. The gore, suspense, and thrills were restrained compared to the previous films.
This is not to say this is a bad film, but the generic cast headed by Thomas Dekker gives us very little to root for and left me wanting more. Here is hoping that the next offering gives fans more of what made the series so popular and less of the formulaic predictability that has become so common in horror.
The new film stars Jackie Earl Haley as the title character, and once again he is dispatching the teens of Elm Street in all manner of bizzare and grisly fashions in their dreams. Soon the town is full of dead teens and their insomniac peers anxious for an answer to the madman. Their parents are no help as they are quick to downplay any questions about Freddy and quickly disregard any concerns raised by their kids, even when the body count continues to rise. As their numbers dwindle, a group of friends starts to uncover the reason behind the unresloved deaths and band together to solve the mystery of Freddy Krueger and survive.
Freddy is only able to menace the teens in their sleep, so they take all manner of precautions in an attempt to stay awake and plot a defense, but sleep is something one can only postpone, never fully avoid, which means Freddy is always lurking, just waiting for his chance to strike.
What follows is a fairly by-the-numbers horror film that is sadly is lacking much suspense and horror. I was a big fan of the series and I found myself wanting to watch the original Wes Craven classic rather than what was unfolding on the screen. Haley does a great job as Krueger, blending menace with gallows humor, but Englund left a very large Fedora and razor gloves to fill and Haley comes up lacking. I also missed the elaborate effects that defined the series, greatly underwhelmed by this film’s attempts. The gore, suspense, and thrills were restrained compared to the previous films.
This is not to say this is a bad film, but the generic cast headed by Thomas Dekker gives us very little to root for and left me wanting more. Here is hoping that the next offering gives fans more of what made the series so popular and less of the formulaic predictability that has become so common in horror.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Favourite (2018) in Movies
Jan 24, 2019
Quirky and original with strong performances and direction
Greek Director Yorgos Lanthimos is the director of such quirky, bizarre comedy/dramas as DOGTOOTH, THE LOBSTER and KILLING OF A SACRED DEER and his latest, THE FAVOURITE is no different, so when it was nominated for 10 Oscars, I thought I'd better go see what all the fuss was all about.
And I'm glad I did for THE FAVOURITE is a biting, funny, sarcastic, bizarre, intense and interesting Royal Court drama about the inner workings, back channel dealings and backstabbing social climbing in Queen Anne's court in England in the early 18th Century as seen through Lanthimos' camera lens - a lens that is different indeed.
Starring Oscar winners Rachel Weisz (THE CONSTANT GARDNER) and Emma Stone (LA LA LAND) in their Oscar nominated turns as cousins who vie for the attentions of Queen Anne (Olivia Colman, also Oscar nominated), it is the rare film that features 3 strong women who play off each other well and where each one is a full character in and of themselves - all 3 with strengths and weaknesses that make them real and compelling and performed by 3 strong actresses. Needless to say that each Oscar nod is well deserved.
But the real star of this film is the sensibilities and camera work of Lanthimos. He uses unusual camera angles, unusual angles and bizarre imagery to show the unreality of the court in relation to the real world around them and is a commentary on these people as much as it shows the action on the screen. This film is an artist with a true, unique vision and is one that, while not for everyone, is one that worked for me.
Lanthimos layers on a rich tapestry of story (by Oscar nominated Screenplay writers Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara) locations (by Oscar nominated Production Designers Fijona Crombie and Alice Felton), Costumes (by Oscar nominated costumer Sandy Powell) , editing (by Oscar nominated Yorgos Mavropsaridis), Cinematography (by Oscar nominated Robbie Ryan) and performances, direction and film.
I think you get the point - this film has become (rightfully so) a darling of the Awards season and is well worth checking out - while this film is not entirely successful in what it attempts to do, it is fun to watch the attempt and the strong performances, characters, direction, costumes, cinematography, etc...which more than makes up for any shortcomings in the story (especially the final act of the film).
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And I'm glad I did for THE FAVOURITE is a biting, funny, sarcastic, bizarre, intense and interesting Royal Court drama about the inner workings, back channel dealings and backstabbing social climbing in Queen Anne's court in England in the early 18th Century as seen through Lanthimos' camera lens - a lens that is different indeed.
Starring Oscar winners Rachel Weisz (THE CONSTANT GARDNER) and Emma Stone (LA LA LAND) in their Oscar nominated turns as cousins who vie for the attentions of Queen Anne (Olivia Colman, also Oscar nominated), it is the rare film that features 3 strong women who play off each other well and where each one is a full character in and of themselves - all 3 with strengths and weaknesses that make them real and compelling and performed by 3 strong actresses. Needless to say that each Oscar nod is well deserved.
But the real star of this film is the sensibilities and camera work of Lanthimos. He uses unusual camera angles, unusual angles and bizarre imagery to show the unreality of the court in relation to the real world around them and is a commentary on these people as much as it shows the action on the screen. This film is an artist with a true, unique vision and is one that, while not for everyone, is one that worked for me.
Lanthimos layers on a rich tapestry of story (by Oscar nominated Screenplay writers Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara) locations (by Oscar nominated Production Designers Fijona Crombie and Alice Felton), Costumes (by Oscar nominated costumer Sandy Powell) , editing (by Oscar nominated Yorgos Mavropsaridis), Cinematography (by Oscar nominated Robbie Ryan) and performances, direction and film.
I think you get the point - this film has become (rightfully so) a darling of the Awards season and is well worth checking out - while this film is not entirely successful in what it attempts to do, it is fun to watch the attempt and the strong performances, characters, direction, costumes, cinematography, etc...which more than makes up for any shortcomings in the story (especially the final act of the film).
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
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 it’s 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 didn’t. 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 haven’t 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 movie’s 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 Empire’s 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 I’ve seen in the cinema this year, it’s 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 didn’t 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 1970’s Carrie Fischer at the end of the movie was very convincing and if it wasn’t for the movement in her mouth, I wouldn’t 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 isn’t 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 weren’t 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 movie’s 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 isn’t the movie’s 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 that’s 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 wouldn’t say anyone was incredible, my personal favourite was Cassian, the Alliance’s trigger finger who had shades of Han Solo thrown in as well. While watching Diego Luna’s 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, let’s talk about the characters that weren’t 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, it’s 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 isn’t in the movie much, but when he is it is fantastic. All of this reminds me a lot of Edwards’ 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. It’s as if Edwards has this idea in his head that less is always more and if he doesn’t 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, it’s 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 Vader’s 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 Vader’s 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, ‘I am your father,’ 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 Hope’s events. At first you wonder why the Rebels are in such a panic then you hear the terrifying breathing from Vader’s suit, but he still isn’t 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 I’ve 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 don’t personally understand the overblown critical fanfare that the movie is receiving, but I’m 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 Whittaker’s 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 trilogy’s 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 movie’s 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 Empire’s 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 I’ve seen in the cinema this year, it’s 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 didn’t 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 1970’s Carrie Fischer at the end of the movie was very convincing and if it wasn’t for the movement in her mouth, I wouldn’t 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 isn’t 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 weren’t 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 movie’s 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 isn’t the movie’s 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 that’s 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 wouldn’t say anyone was incredible, my personal favourite was Cassian, the Alliance’s trigger finger who had shades of Han Solo thrown in as well. While watching Diego Luna’s 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, let’s talk about the characters that weren’t 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, it’s 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 isn’t in the movie much, but when he is it is fantastic. All of this reminds me a lot of Edwards’ 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. It’s as if Edwards has this idea in his head that less is always more and if he doesn’t 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, it’s 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 Vader’s 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 Vader’s 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, ‘I am your father,’ 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 Hope’s events. At first you wonder why the Rebels are in such a panic then you hear the terrifying breathing from Vader’s suit, but he still isn’t 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 I’ve 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 don’t personally understand the overblown critical fanfare that the movie is receiving, but I’m 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 Whittaker’s 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 trilogy’s 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.