Search
Search results
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Alice in Wonderland (2010) in Movies
Sep 26, 2017
A is for Artful
Contains spoilers, click to show
As with another of Tim Burton’s films, Sleepy Hollow, Alice in Wonderland strays significantly from the original material. And, in a vein similar to Sleepy Hollow, decapitation is a much-discussed topic.
Alice is introduced to the audience as a child who has strange dreams. In the subsequent scenes, an older Alice is seen in a carriage with her mother. She is unwittingly on her way to her engagement party, and she is fully expected to accept the offer of marriage from someone who seems quite ill-suited for her. “Your life will be perfect. It’s already been decided,” says her sister Margaret.
Elements of the engagement party offer foreshadowing for the alternate reality Alice soon finds herself in. Instead of accepting her suitor’s proposal, Alice runs away and follows a rabbit wearing a waistcoat into an exceptionally large rabbit hole. There, she is found falling with a variety of household objects, including one particularly friendly piano.
Once in Wonderland, Alice’s world has literally turned upside-down. She falls from her perch on the ceiling to the floor. Alice solves a puzzle of many locked doors, using the expected growing and shrinking mechanisms, and then she emerges into a strange topiary. There she is greeted by the rabbit and other residents of Wonderland, who argue whether this Alice is “the right Alice.”
Many of the traditional characters are found in this Wonderland, but most of the ominous poetry associated with those characters has been omitted. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are introduced, but they don’t seem to serve much purpose. I missed the recitation of “the Walrus and the Carpenter” very much.
Alice insists that the world around her must be a dream, as she is led through oversized mushrooms to a blue caterpillar, voiced by the talented Alan Rickman. Once again, Alice’s destiny is written: the caterpillar reveals a scroll which shows an image of Alice slaying the dreaded Jabberwocky. Indeed, it is her role to become the champion of Wonderland, to rise up and defeat the Red Queen who keeps this horrible beast as a weapon.
Later, we come across a dysfunctional tea party held under the shadow of a dilapidated windmill. Johnny Depp appears as the wild and wide-eyed Mad Hatter. Alice, it seems, is late to her tea just as she was to her engagement party. We learn that there is a whole network of characters, including the White Queen (Anne Hathaway), who wish to bring down the tyrannical Red Queen.
The struggle between the Red and White Queens eventually comes to a head, and Alice bravely accepts her fate to fight the Jabberwocky. And the Jabberwocky is indeed a terrifying entity, as it seems to be part dinosaur and part dragon.
The visual effects in this film were striking. Burton paints a beautiful landscape full of dark, rich colors. Several moments in the film are surreal and disturbing, such as when Alice crosses a moat full of dismembered heads to gain access to the Red Queen’s castle. However, some of the characters, such as the Cheshire cat, had a more cartoonish quality about them that I found off-putting.
The acting and voice-overs in the film were also impressive. Actress Mia Wasikowska was enchanting as Alice. She reflected the vulnerability and the more intrepid characteristics of the young girl quite well. Depp was delightfully creepy as the Mad Hatter. Crispin Glover was effective as the Knave of Hearts, the Red Queen’s lead henchman. And Stephen Fry was a marvelous voice choice for the strange and eerie Cheshire Cat.
The Red Queen is quite the character in this film. Helena Bonham Carter perfectly captures the Queen’s cruelty and absurdity. She delivers the “off with his head” line repeatedly and with gusto. The Queen’s cranium was so large that I was surprised she didn’t fall forward from the weight of it. And I haven’t seen that much blue eyeshadow since the 80s.
The Blu-ray version of this film enhanced the quality of the computer graphic imagery quite well. The special features consisted of interviews of the cast regarding the characters. These interviews contained behind-the-scenes looks at some of the makeup and green screen work done on this film. Though these interviews were enlightening, I would have loved to see more about the production process, since the sets and some characters were entirely computer-generated.
All things considered, Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is a delightful departure from reality. Fans of Burton’s other films are sure to love it.
Alice is introduced to the audience as a child who has strange dreams. In the subsequent scenes, an older Alice is seen in a carriage with her mother. She is unwittingly on her way to her engagement party, and she is fully expected to accept the offer of marriage from someone who seems quite ill-suited for her. “Your life will be perfect. It’s already been decided,” says her sister Margaret.
Elements of the engagement party offer foreshadowing for the alternate reality Alice soon finds herself in. Instead of accepting her suitor’s proposal, Alice runs away and follows a rabbit wearing a waistcoat into an exceptionally large rabbit hole. There, she is found falling with a variety of household objects, including one particularly friendly piano.
Once in Wonderland, Alice’s world has literally turned upside-down. She falls from her perch on the ceiling to the floor. Alice solves a puzzle of many locked doors, using the expected growing and shrinking mechanisms, and then she emerges into a strange topiary. There she is greeted by the rabbit and other residents of Wonderland, who argue whether this Alice is “the right Alice.”
Many of the traditional characters are found in this Wonderland, but most of the ominous poetry associated with those characters has been omitted. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are introduced, but they don’t seem to serve much purpose. I missed the recitation of “the Walrus and the Carpenter” very much.
Alice insists that the world around her must be a dream, as she is led through oversized mushrooms to a blue caterpillar, voiced by the talented Alan Rickman. Once again, Alice’s destiny is written: the caterpillar reveals a scroll which shows an image of Alice slaying the dreaded Jabberwocky. Indeed, it is her role to become the champion of Wonderland, to rise up and defeat the Red Queen who keeps this horrible beast as a weapon.
Later, we come across a dysfunctional tea party held under the shadow of a dilapidated windmill. Johnny Depp appears as the wild and wide-eyed Mad Hatter. Alice, it seems, is late to her tea just as she was to her engagement party. We learn that there is a whole network of characters, including the White Queen (Anne Hathaway), who wish to bring down the tyrannical Red Queen.
The struggle between the Red and White Queens eventually comes to a head, and Alice bravely accepts her fate to fight the Jabberwocky. And the Jabberwocky is indeed a terrifying entity, as it seems to be part dinosaur and part dragon.
The visual effects in this film were striking. Burton paints a beautiful landscape full of dark, rich colors. Several moments in the film are surreal and disturbing, such as when Alice crosses a moat full of dismembered heads to gain access to the Red Queen’s castle. However, some of the characters, such as the Cheshire cat, had a more cartoonish quality about them that I found off-putting.
The acting and voice-overs in the film were also impressive. Actress Mia Wasikowska was enchanting as Alice. She reflected the vulnerability and the more intrepid characteristics of the young girl quite well. Depp was delightfully creepy as the Mad Hatter. Crispin Glover was effective as the Knave of Hearts, the Red Queen’s lead henchman. And Stephen Fry was a marvelous voice choice for the strange and eerie Cheshire Cat.
The Red Queen is quite the character in this film. Helena Bonham Carter perfectly captures the Queen’s cruelty and absurdity. She delivers the “off with his head” line repeatedly and with gusto. The Queen’s cranium was so large that I was surprised she didn’t fall forward from the weight of it. And I haven’t seen that much blue eyeshadow since the 80s.
The Blu-ray version of this film enhanced the quality of the computer graphic imagery quite well. The special features consisted of interviews of the cast regarding the characters. These interviews contained behind-the-scenes looks at some of the makeup and green screen work done on this film. Though these interviews were enlightening, I would have loved to see more about the production process, since the sets and some characters were entirely computer-generated.
All things considered, Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is a delightful departure from reality. Fans of Burton’s other films are sure to love it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Walk the Line (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Condensing something as vast and complex as the life of a person into a film is often a daunting task. With so many events that comprise the span of an individual, knowing what to cover and what to omit is a daunting task for any writer. For an icon like Johnny Cash, this task becomes monumental as not only does the history and humanity of the individual need to be captured, but the very soul of the artist as well.
Thankfully in the film Walk the Line Writer Gil Dennis and Writer/Director James Mangold capture the very essence of The Man in Black. Unlike many biopics that focus on the rise and fall of an individual, Walk the Line strives to balance than man and his demons without losing the compassion of the character.
The film stars Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash, a man who rose from poverty in Dyess Arkansas to become on of the most beloved and enduring entertainers in history. Chronicling portions of his childhood, and the hardships he endured as well as his sting in the Air Force, we are shown things that helped shape the man he was to become. Shortly after his Air Force career, Johnny marries Vivian (Ginnifer Goodwin), and they start a family. Struggling to make ends meet as a door to door salesman, and facing pressure to take a job with her father in San Antonio Johnny manages to gain an audition for Sun Records in Nashville.
When told in the audition that his Gospel songs will not sell, Johnny instead performs one of his own compositions and earns a record contract. Before long, he and his band are on the road playing with the likes of Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley, and June Carter (Reese Witherspoon). June who has been part of a singing family
as well as an object of admiration for Johnny since their childhoods soon becomes a friend to Johnny as he copes with rising fame and the pressures and temptations of life on the road.
As Johnny spends more and more time on the road, tensions between him and Vivian grow causing Johnny to delve deeper into the temptations that are available to him as a star. During this time, Johhny becomes obsessed with June, who wile attracted to Johnny has just come from a failed marriage and does not want to break up Johnny’s family. It is against this backdrop that the unusual courtship between the two begins. They spend time with one another on the road, they talk for hours on end, and even perform duets with one another on stage, yet Johnny’s love for June remains a source of frustration that only leads him deeper into his destructive behaviors.
While the addition that grips Johnny is a driving part of the film, the main focus of the story is the love between Johnny and June and their unusual courtship that survived despite marriages, addictions, denials, and their own insecurities. Phoenix and Witherspoon are amazing and give Oscar Caliber performances that are easily the best in recent years. Not only do they both convey the mannerisms of their flesh and blood counterparts, but they convey solid chemistry and compassion from the audience.
While one can say that Johnny was an adulterer and a drug addict, his gentle nature, compassion, and humanity are abundantly clear in the way he is portrayed by Phoenix. We do not see Cash as a stuck up rock star, we see him as a simple human being, who used his gifts to connect with the masses yet never lost site of his heart. His tenderness, honesty, and devotion to his music, June, and eventually himself are clear and Phoenix is able to portray this by a reserved and endearing manner that captures the man he is portraying. Far too many films of this type are loaded with scenes of conflict, screaming, conflict and destruction that it was refreshing to see Johnny attempt to win June by stubbornness, and persistence yet never losing his easy going mannerisms despite being wracked by addiction.
Much has been made of the decision to let Phoenix and Witherspoon sing their parts rather than dub the voices. Unlike in the film “Ray” where Jaime Foxx had his singing dubbed over, the accurate and heartfelt interpretations of the songs only underscores the triumph and complexity of their performances.
Not just a good film but a great film, Walk the Line is an endearing and entertaining film that keeps you engrossed from start to finish. If you are not a fan of Johnny Cash when you see this film, at the least you will find a new found respect for this American Legend.
Thankfully in the film Walk the Line Writer Gil Dennis and Writer/Director James Mangold capture the very essence of The Man in Black. Unlike many biopics that focus on the rise and fall of an individual, Walk the Line strives to balance than man and his demons without losing the compassion of the character.
The film stars Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash, a man who rose from poverty in Dyess Arkansas to become on of the most beloved and enduring entertainers in history. Chronicling portions of his childhood, and the hardships he endured as well as his sting in the Air Force, we are shown things that helped shape the man he was to become. Shortly after his Air Force career, Johnny marries Vivian (Ginnifer Goodwin), and they start a family. Struggling to make ends meet as a door to door salesman, and facing pressure to take a job with her father in San Antonio Johnny manages to gain an audition for Sun Records in Nashville.
When told in the audition that his Gospel songs will not sell, Johnny instead performs one of his own compositions and earns a record contract. Before long, he and his band are on the road playing with the likes of Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley, and June Carter (Reese Witherspoon). June who has been part of a singing family
as well as an object of admiration for Johnny since their childhoods soon becomes a friend to Johnny as he copes with rising fame and the pressures and temptations of life on the road.
As Johnny spends more and more time on the road, tensions between him and Vivian grow causing Johnny to delve deeper into the temptations that are available to him as a star. During this time, Johhny becomes obsessed with June, who wile attracted to Johnny has just come from a failed marriage and does not want to break up Johnny’s family. It is against this backdrop that the unusual courtship between the two begins. They spend time with one another on the road, they talk for hours on end, and even perform duets with one another on stage, yet Johnny’s love for June remains a source of frustration that only leads him deeper into his destructive behaviors.
While the addition that grips Johnny is a driving part of the film, the main focus of the story is the love between Johnny and June and their unusual courtship that survived despite marriages, addictions, denials, and their own insecurities. Phoenix and Witherspoon are amazing and give Oscar Caliber performances that are easily the best in recent years. Not only do they both convey the mannerisms of their flesh and blood counterparts, but they convey solid chemistry and compassion from the audience.
While one can say that Johnny was an adulterer and a drug addict, his gentle nature, compassion, and humanity are abundantly clear in the way he is portrayed by Phoenix. We do not see Cash as a stuck up rock star, we see him as a simple human being, who used his gifts to connect with the masses yet never lost site of his heart. His tenderness, honesty, and devotion to his music, June, and eventually himself are clear and Phoenix is able to portray this by a reserved and endearing manner that captures the man he is portraying. Far too many films of this type are loaded with scenes of conflict, screaming, conflict and destruction that it was refreshing to see Johnny attempt to win June by stubbornness, and persistence yet never losing his easy going mannerisms despite being wracked by addiction.
Much has been made of the decision to let Phoenix and Witherspoon sing their parts rather than dub the voices. Unlike in the film “Ray” where Jaime Foxx had his singing dubbed over, the accurate and heartfelt interpretations of the songs only underscores the triumph and complexity of their performances.
Not just a good film but a great film, Walk the Line is an endearing and entertaining film that keeps you engrossed from start to finish. If you are not a fan of Johnny Cash when you see this film, at the least you will find a new found respect for this American Legend.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Truth or Dare (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Growing up with four sisters who would regularly have slumber parties, I was no stranger to the game Truth or Dare. For those who were never lucky enough to experience this game for themselves, the premise is simple, decide whether to tell the truth, regardless of what was asked or take a dare. I’m certain many friendships and relationships were lost over this simple game, because most people probably didn’t want to tell the truth or had friends who would come up with the most embarrassing dare imaginable. Hopefully, the game didn’t result in the death of most of your friends though, unlike the film Truth or Dare produced by Blumhouse Productions and directed by Jeff Wadlow (Kick-Ass 2).
Truth or Dare is a film that starts off with simple beginnings, a group of friends in their final year of college decide to spend their last spring break partying it up in Mexico. Olivia (Lucy Hale), being the responsible one, is reluctant to go choosing instead to spend her spring break building houses for Habitat for Humanity. Her best friend Markie (Violett Bean) pulls out all the stops and convinces her reluctant bestie to forgo Habitat and spend the week in Mexico instead. On their final night Olivia is approached by a handsome stranger named Carter (Landon Liboiron) who convinces her and her friends to join him for a rousing game of Truth or Dare in a spooky old abandoned Mexican mission. What could go wrong?
The game seemed simple enough, and everyone traveled home thinking that the game was only a game and ended when they left Mexico. It is only after their return, and strangers begin smiling at them and Truth or Dare voices appear from out of nowhere, that the game has only just begun. Play the game or face the consequences, fail to tell the truth, you die; fail your dare, you die…the rules are simple, but obeying them is what gradually tears the group of friends apart.
Truth or Dare follows much of the same plot twists and turns that other teen-based horror movies (I Know What You Did Last Summer, Final Destination, etc.) do. Initially the characters don’t buy into what is happening and it takes a few horrific events to convince them that what is going on is real. While the movie sticks very close to the formula of those before it, there are still the occasional plot twists or jump scares to keep things interesting. The movie attempts to play on the moral dilemma that comes with playing a game of Truth or Dare; the player must usually decide between hurting someone with honesty or harming themselves or someone else by taking the dare. Without giving away any spoilers, there is a “truth” question posed to Olivia at the beginning of the game that comes full circle at the end which demonstrates this point brilliantly.
Lucy Hale did an incredible job in her portrayal of Olivia, a young college student who tries to do the right thing, even if that happens to be at the expense of those around her. The rest of the cast however seemed to be a little more inconsistent in their character portrayals. It’s not that any one of them did a particularly poor job, their characters just felt more like cardboard cutouts, sticking to their given teen stereotype that teetered between believable and frustrating. There are certainly plenty of moments where you will be face-palming yourself on how the characters are behaving, considering the very real consequences they are facing. Remember they are all very aware of the rules, so accepting someone’s truth or the consequences of a dare, you’d think would be a given.
Overall, I enjoyed Truth or Dare. It doesn’t break any new ground and in many ways, resembles the teen suspense/horror movies of the mid 90’s. There are plenty of jump scares, and also a fair share of groan worthy moments. It’s the type of movie that won’t likely have any lasting impact once you leave the theater but is entertaining enough that you won’t be looking at your watch wondering when it’ll be over. It’s a fun movie that likely won’t be nominated for any awards, but that’s okay. Sometimes all you want is an escape, a movie that accepts what it is, and hopefully gives the audience exactly what they were expecting.
Truth or Dare is a film that starts off with simple beginnings, a group of friends in their final year of college decide to spend their last spring break partying it up in Mexico. Olivia (Lucy Hale), being the responsible one, is reluctant to go choosing instead to spend her spring break building houses for Habitat for Humanity. Her best friend Markie (Violett Bean) pulls out all the stops and convinces her reluctant bestie to forgo Habitat and spend the week in Mexico instead. On their final night Olivia is approached by a handsome stranger named Carter (Landon Liboiron) who convinces her and her friends to join him for a rousing game of Truth or Dare in a spooky old abandoned Mexican mission. What could go wrong?
The game seemed simple enough, and everyone traveled home thinking that the game was only a game and ended when they left Mexico. It is only after their return, and strangers begin smiling at them and Truth or Dare voices appear from out of nowhere, that the game has only just begun. Play the game or face the consequences, fail to tell the truth, you die; fail your dare, you die…the rules are simple, but obeying them is what gradually tears the group of friends apart.
Truth or Dare follows much of the same plot twists and turns that other teen-based horror movies (I Know What You Did Last Summer, Final Destination, etc.) do. Initially the characters don’t buy into what is happening and it takes a few horrific events to convince them that what is going on is real. While the movie sticks very close to the formula of those before it, there are still the occasional plot twists or jump scares to keep things interesting. The movie attempts to play on the moral dilemma that comes with playing a game of Truth or Dare; the player must usually decide between hurting someone with honesty or harming themselves or someone else by taking the dare. Without giving away any spoilers, there is a “truth” question posed to Olivia at the beginning of the game that comes full circle at the end which demonstrates this point brilliantly.
Lucy Hale did an incredible job in her portrayal of Olivia, a young college student who tries to do the right thing, even if that happens to be at the expense of those around her. The rest of the cast however seemed to be a little more inconsistent in their character portrayals. It’s not that any one of them did a particularly poor job, their characters just felt more like cardboard cutouts, sticking to their given teen stereotype that teetered between believable and frustrating. There are certainly plenty of moments where you will be face-palming yourself on how the characters are behaving, considering the very real consequences they are facing. Remember they are all very aware of the rules, so accepting someone’s truth or the consequences of a dare, you’d think would be a given.
Overall, I enjoyed Truth or Dare. It doesn’t break any new ground and in many ways, resembles the teen suspense/horror movies of the mid 90’s. There are plenty of jump scares, and also a fair share of groan worthy moments. It’s the type of movie that won’t likely have any lasting impact once you leave the theater but is entertaining enough that you won’t be looking at your watch wondering when it’ll be over. It’s a fun movie that likely won’t be nominated for any awards, but that’s okay. Sometimes all you want is an escape, a movie that accepts what it is, and hopefully gives the audience exactly what they were expecting.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Let Him Go (2020) in Movies
Dec 23, 2020
Feud for Thought
After a family tragedy for the Blackledge family, grandparents George (Kevin Costner) and Margaret (Diane Lane) are left to bring up baby Jimmy (Bram and Otto Hornung) with mother/daughter-in-law Lorna (Kayli Carter). But a few years later, Lorna marries bad-un Donnie Weboy (Will Brittain) and disappears back to Donnie's hillbilly extended family in the wilds of North Dakota, led by the fearsome Blanche Weboy (Lesley Manville). Fearing for the child's wellbeing, Margaret drags retired Sheriff George on a dangerous journey to rescue the child.
There are strong similarities in this story with a sub-plot of the excellent "Ozark", where the psychopathic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) is intent on having a child to grow up with on her remote ranch. The sense of tension there is recreated here, exacerbated by the movie's extremely slow (read "glacial") pace in its early stages. It's the same sort of rising dread that I felt with "Nocturnal Animals". This reaches its peak at a tense standoff over lamb chops at the Weboy ranch, but we are probably half-way into the film by then.
The slow pace however is broken by a couple of extremely violent scenes that earn the movie its UK-15 certificate. One (no spoilers here!) harks back to another Kevin Costner blockbuster where he was a bit luckier! And the finale turns a slightly sleepy tale of "two old folks" into an 'all guns blazing' action western that's highly unexpected. Although you could argue that this is tonally extremely uneven, it works and makes the movie a lot more memorable than it otherwise would be.
The standout leading performance here is the one from Diane Lane as the mentally tortured Granny pursuing her convictions across the country. Here writer/director Thomas Bezucha gives the character full rein. It's a memorable 'strong female' part, that would have been dominated by the male lead in the writing of films a few years back. Lane delivers a dramatic and rock-solid performance that has Oscar nomination written all over it.
I'm also a big fan of Kevin Costner, not just because he's a solid and reliable actor over many years. I always remember him gamely appearing as "The Postman"/'propeller-guy' in Billy Crystal's hilarious montage opening for the 70th Academy Awards. Anyhow, here he has his meatiest dramatic role in many years, and delivers fully on it. Top job, although I suspect this may not be his year for his elusive Best Actor award.
Finally, rounding out the Oscar hopefuls is the brilliant Lesley Manville as Blanche Weboy. It's a dream of a role for the Brighton-born star, nominated of course for the Best Supporting Actress two years ago for "Phantom Thread". And she is genuinely chilling here, firing on all cylinders like some sort of deranged Bette Davis on speed. She's used sparingly in the movie, but that makes her scenes all the more memorable. Another nomination perhaps? I'd predict so, yes.
I found this to be an uncomfortable watch, since I found myself in a moral quandary with the storyline. It's clear that Margaret is genuinely concerned for the safety of Jimmy (and less so, Lorna). Yet, what she is ultimately prepared to do is consider child abduction, when the law if probably on the side of the other party. Sure, the lifestyle and attitudes of the Weboys are alien to this more traditional "Granny". But although Blanche rules with a Victorian-level of grit, isn't she - at least before any of her more vicious tendencies emerge - entitled to do that? The film firmly roots itself behind the Blackledge's as "the good guys", but the script cleverly has you questioning that at various points,
Two technical categories in "Let Him Go" are also worthy of note. The cinematography is by Guy Godfree, and the sweeping vistas of Montana and North Dakota (actually Alberta in Canada!) are gloriously delivered. And the music by Michael Giacchino - one of my favourite composers - is cello-heavy and fitting for the sombre storyline. I always assess the quality of a score by whether I annoy the cinema cleaners by sitting until the last of the end credits have rolled, and this is one I did that to.
As the last movie I see before Christmas, "Let Him Go" is not exactly a feelgood festive offering. It's a well-crafted and thoughtful story, but not one to make you feel good inside, for the reasons outlined above. If you are a movie-lover though, then it's an interesting watch, if only for the fine acting performances on offer.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "Bob the Movie Man" review on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/23/let-him-go-is-not-a-joyous-affair-but-delivers-oscar-worthy-performances/. Thanks.)
There are strong similarities in this story with a sub-plot of the excellent "Ozark", where the psychopathic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) is intent on having a child to grow up with on her remote ranch. The sense of tension there is recreated here, exacerbated by the movie's extremely slow (read "glacial") pace in its early stages. It's the same sort of rising dread that I felt with "Nocturnal Animals". This reaches its peak at a tense standoff over lamb chops at the Weboy ranch, but we are probably half-way into the film by then.
The slow pace however is broken by a couple of extremely violent scenes that earn the movie its UK-15 certificate. One (no spoilers here!) harks back to another Kevin Costner blockbuster where he was a bit luckier! And the finale turns a slightly sleepy tale of "two old folks" into an 'all guns blazing' action western that's highly unexpected. Although you could argue that this is tonally extremely uneven, it works and makes the movie a lot more memorable than it otherwise would be.
The standout leading performance here is the one from Diane Lane as the mentally tortured Granny pursuing her convictions across the country. Here writer/director Thomas Bezucha gives the character full rein. It's a memorable 'strong female' part, that would have been dominated by the male lead in the writing of films a few years back. Lane delivers a dramatic and rock-solid performance that has Oscar nomination written all over it.
I'm also a big fan of Kevin Costner, not just because he's a solid and reliable actor over many years. I always remember him gamely appearing as "The Postman"/'propeller-guy' in Billy Crystal's hilarious montage opening for the 70th Academy Awards. Anyhow, here he has his meatiest dramatic role in many years, and delivers fully on it. Top job, although I suspect this may not be his year for his elusive Best Actor award.
Finally, rounding out the Oscar hopefuls is the brilliant Lesley Manville as Blanche Weboy. It's a dream of a role for the Brighton-born star, nominated of course for the Best Supporting Actress two years ago for "Phantom Thread". And she is genuinely chilling here, firing on all cylinders like some sort of deranged Bette Davis on speed. She's used sparingly in the movie, but that makes her scenes all the more memorable. Another nomination perhaps? I'd predict so, yes.
I found this to be an uncomfortable watch, since I found myself in a moral quandary with the storyline. It's clear that Margaret is genuinely concerned for the safety of Jimmy (and less so, Lorna). Yet, what she is ultimately prepared to do is consider child abduction, when the law if probably on the side of the other party. Sure, the lifestyle and attitudes of the Weboys are alien to this more traditional "Granny". But although Blanche rules with a Victorian-level of grit, isn't she - at least before any of her more vicious tendencies emerge - entitled to do that? The film firmly roots itself behind the Blackledge's as "the good guys", but the script cleverly has you questioning that at various points,
Two technical categories in "Let Him Go" are also worthy of note. The cinematography is by Guy Godfree, and the sweeping vistas of Montana and North Dakota (actually Alberta in Canada!) are gloriously delivered. And the music by Michael Giacchino - one of my favourite composers - is cello-heavy and fitting for the sombre storyline. I always assess the quality of a score by whether I annoy the cinema cleaners by sitting until the last of the end credits have rolled, and this is one I did that to.
As the last movie I see before Christmas, "Let Him Go" is not exactly a feelgood festive offering. It's a well-crafted and thoughtful story, but not one to make you feel good inside, for the reasons outlined above. If you are a movie-lover though, then it's an interesting watch, if only for the fine acting performances on offer.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "Bob the Movie Man" review on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/23/let-him-go-is-not-a-joyous-affair-but-delivers-oscar-worthy-performances/. Thanks.)
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Stepsister in Books
Aug 16, 2019
Review by Disney Bookworm
I took a break from the Disney Twisted Tales collection to check out a new novel by the New York Times best-selling author Jennifer Donnelly and wow am I glad I did!
Judging purely by the title of the book: the cynical side of me expected this to be a retelling of the traditional fairy tale from the viewpoint of the “ugly stepsisters”. Perhaps with a remorseful twist and a concluding reconciliation. I could not have been more wrong.
This is possibly the first time I should have judged a book by its cover: the iconic glass slipper casting fragmented shards across the jacket should have certainly forewarned me that this will not be just another Cinderella story.
Unlike the twisted tales and the villain series, Step Sister is, as far as I know, not connected to the Disney enterprise at all. This makes it an edgier read by far but also allows the novel to lean as far away from the traditional fairy tale as it dares: smashing just a couple of stereotypes along the way.
Oh, and just a quick point: the novel opens on Isabelle and Octavia disfiguring their own feet, at the command of their mother, with the aim to fit into the glass slipper and marry the Prince. See what I mean- edgy right?
Stepsister is told from the viewpoint of Isabelle: a headstrong girl with an ambitious mother, an intelligent sister Octavia and a kind, sweet sister, Ella. Isabelle is a disappointment to her mother: a plain girl who prefers riding and fencing to corsets and suitors. A number of flashbacks to the girls’ childhood also suggests that Isabelle, Octavia and Ella were once very close, leading the reader to wonder how the relationship became the poisonous one we are so familiar with.
Unsurprisingly, their Maman’s plan to mutilate her way to the palace does not succeed and Ella takes her rightful place by the Prince’s side, claiming her ‘happily ever after’. But what is to become of the family she leaves behind? Maimed and outcast, Isabelle and Octavia struggle to carry on once their actions are brought to light and they are promptly labelled the “ugly stepsisters” by all around them.
Desolate and lost, Isabelle mistakenly believes that her life would improve if she were more attractive and makes a wish to the fairy queen Tanaquill, who promises to grant her desire when Isabelle finds the three missing parts of her heart.
Thus, begins Isabelle’s mission to reclaim her heart and turn her life around. The stepsister’s road of discovery is a bumpy one however, and is not made any easier by an old crone named Fate and a young man named Chance, both of whom seem to have an unhealthy obsession with her progress and a strange, almost friendly rivalry over the possession of Isabelle’s life map.
Jennifer Donnelly introduces us to a number of characters throughout Isabelle’s journey, all of whom are exquisite: Chance is an eccentric debonair with an entourage that may have just stepped out of The Greatest Showman; Octavia is every nerdy, sarcastic girl’s dream and even Fate is strangely likeable. It is truly impressive how Donnelly can make us feel like we know these people within the space of 470 pages.
I was also impressed with how different Jennifer Donnelly’s characters are from everything I have read before. Even Tanaquill is not the fairy godmother we all know and love. She isn’t even the slightly bonkers Helena Bonham-Carter version! There isn’t a bibbidi bobbidi boo in sight for this talon-fingered shapeshifter and she certainly does not grant wishes easily.
As a result, the reader does not quite trust the fairy queen: there is always an aspect of her that seems evil. Alas, this is another stroke of genius by Donnelly: the fairy queen doesn’t look like Tinkerbell or the Blue Fairy and so we don’t trust her- even when she is helping Isabelle and why is that? Because of her appearance? Well that makes us just as bad as those who persecute Isabelle!
Ella features very little in the novel. This is not wholly unexpected: it is not her story after all. She is frequently referred to and heavily present in Isabelle’s evolution but, out of all the characters, we know Ella the least. This is not to say that Donnelly presents Ella as a 2D character in order to prevent us from preferring her to our feistier protagonist: in fact, Ella slowly reveals a darker side to her own tale. Simply put, she does not have the depth and human rawness that Isabelle has. Isabelle appeals to the insecure teenager in us all: never believing that she is good enough, focusing on her flaws and judging herself based on the opinions of others.
When Isabelle finally finds the pieces of her heart and has to literally fight to achieve her happy ending, she automatically looks to one of the male characters to lead. After all, it has always been instilled into her that she is “just a girl”. However, Chance and his entourage have educated Isabelle as to the potential of her sex and it is through this inspiration that Isabelle and the reader realise that the answer has been there all along: the answer is Isabelle. All the childhood flashbacks of riding and fighting have been breadcrumbs for the reader: Isabelle is a warrior- her life is not mapped out by Fate or Chance anymore; she can decide her own path.
Step Sister holds up a gigantic mirror to the way we judge beauty and shows us what it really means to be a girl. Jennifer Donnelly proves that being strong, brave and, most importantly, true to yourself is what makes you beautiful. In fact, it is not until Isabelle accepts herself that she is described as beautiful and, by standing up for what she believes in, everyone achieves their own happy endings. As a mum of two young boys I really appreciated how Octavia’s love of science and math and Felix’s creativity and love of art directly contrasted with Maman’s old-fashioned desire to “marry off” her daughters. This story is no fairy tale: it is real, it is edgy and it is telling all generations that life is what you make it.
Judging purely by the title of the book: the cynical side of me expected this to be a retelling of the traditional fairy tale from the viewpoint of the “ugly stepsisters”. Perhaps with a remorseful twist and a concluding reconciliation. I could not have been more wrong.
This is possibly the first time I should have judged a book by its cover: the iconic glass slipper casting fragmented shards across the jacket should have certainly forewarned me that this will not be just another Cinderella story.
Unlike the twisted tales and the villain series, Step Sister is, as far as I know, not connected to the Disney enterprise at all. This makes it an edgier read by far but also allows the novel to lean as far away from the traditional fairy tale as it dares: smashing just a couple of stereotypes along the way.
Oh, and just a quick point: the novel opens on Isabelle and Octavia disfiguring their own feet, at the command of their mother, with the aim to fit into the glass slipper and marry the Prince. See what I mean- edgy right?
Stepsister is told from the viewpoint of Isabelle: a headstrong girl with an ambitious mother, an intelligent sister Octavia and a kind, sweet sister, Ella. Isabelle is a disappointment to her mother: a plain girl who prefers riding and fencing to corsets and suitors. A number of flashbacks to the girls’ childhood also suggests that Isabelle, Octavia and Ella were once very close, leading the reader to wonder how the relationship became the poisonous one we are so familiar with.
Unsurprisingly, their Maman’s plan to mutilate her way to the palace does not succeed and Ella takes her rightful place by the Prince’s side, claiming her ‘happily ever after’. But what is to become of the family she leaves behind? Maimed and outcast, Isabelle and Octavia struggle to carry on once their actions are brought to light and they are promptly labelled the “ugly stepsisters” by all around them.
Desolate and lost, Isabelle mistakenly believes that her life would improve if she were more attractive and makes a wish to the fairy queen Tanaquill, who promises to grant her desire when Isabelle finds the three missing parts of her heart.
Thus, begins Isabelle’s mission to reclaim her heart and turn her life around. The stepsister’s road of discovery is a bumpy one however, and is not made any easier by an old crone named Fate and a young man named Chance, both of whom seem to have an unhealthy obsession with her progress and a strange, almost friendly rivalry over the possession of Isabelle’s life map.
Jennifer Donnelly introduces us to a number of characters throughout Isabelle’s journey, all of whom are exquisite: Chance is an eccentric debonair with an entourage that may have just stepped out of The Greatest Showman; Octavia is every nerdy, sarcastic girl’s dream and even Fate is strangely likeable. It is truly impressive how Donnelly can make us feel like we know these people within the space of 470 pages.
I was also impressed with how different Jennifer Donnelly’s characters are from everything I have read before. Even Tanaquill is not the fairy godmother we all know and love. She isn’t even the slightly bonkers Helena Bonham-Carter version! There isn’t a bibbidi bobbidi boo in sight for this talon-fingered shapeshifter and she certainly does not grant wishes easily.
As a result, the reader does not quite trust the fairy queen: there is always an aspect of her that seems evil. Alas, this is another stroke of genius by Donnelly: the fairy queen doesn’t look like Tinkerbell or the Blue Fairy and so we don’t trust her- even when she is helping Isabelle and why is that? Because of her appearance? Well that makes us just as bad as those who persecute Isabelle!
Ella features very little in the novel. This is not wholly unexpected: it is not her story after all. She is frequently referred to and heavily present in Isabelle’s evolution but, out of all the characters, we know Ella the least. This is not to say that Donnelly presents Ella as a 2D character in order to prevent us from preferring her to our feistier protagonist: in fact, Ella slowly reveals a darker side to her own tale. Simply put, she does not have the depth and human rawness that Isabelle has. Isabelle appeals to the insecure teenager in us all: never believing that she is good enough, focusing on her flaws and judging herself based on the opinions of others.
When Isabelle finally finds the pieces of her heart and has to literally fight to achieve her happy ending, she automatically looks to one of the male characters to lead. After all, it has always been instilled into her that she is “just a girl”. However, Chance and his entourage have educated Isabelle as to the potential of her sex and it is through this inspiration that Isabelle and the reader realise that the answer has been there all along: the answer is Isabelle. All the childhood flashbacks of riding and fighting have been breadcrumbs for the reader: Isabelle is a warrior- her life is not mapped out by Fate or Chance anymore; she can decide her own path.
Step Sister holds up a gigantic mirror to the way we judge beauty and shows us what it really means to be a girl. Jennifer Donnelly proves that being strong, brave and, most importantly, true to yourself is what makes you beautiful. In fact, it is not until Isabelle accepts herself that she is described as beautiful and, by standing up for what she believes in, everyone achieves their own happy endings. As a mum of two young boys I really appreciated how Octavia’s love of science and math and Felix’s creativity and love of art directly contrasted with Maman’s old-fashioned desire to “marry off” her daughters. This story is no fairy tale: it is real, it is edgy and it is telling all generations that life is what you make it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Battleship (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Basing a movie off of a videogame is often a risky proposition. For every “Resident Evil”, there at least a dozen others that are out and out disasters, “Mario Brothers”, “Wing Commander”, and “Double Dragon” are a few examples of how not to do it.
While Hollywood shows no signs of stopping videogame adaptations anytime soon, game development companies are becoming more savvy with allowing their products to become movies and are requiring uality scripts, cast, and directors before they enter into any film deal. Undaunted, Hollywood turned its eyes on children’s toys for inspiration. With the successful Transformers series, Hasbro has been targeted for their very popular line of board games as source material for future movies.
First out of the box is “Battleship”, director Peter Berg’s big-budget adaptation of the timeless naval strategy game that has been enjoyed for decades by players young and old. Since this is the era of video games, the simplistic style of the board game needed to be tweaked in order to make it appealing for the summer movie masses.
Gone is the classic strategy of the game and in its place, a loud and brash cast of 20-somethings, over-the-top special effects, and a plot riddled with more holes than the classic grids in the game that spawned the film.
Taylor Kitsch follows up his role in John Carter by playing Alex Hopper, a ne’er-do-well who despite the mentoring of his successful naval officer brother (Alexander Skarsgard), never seems to run out of ways to get himself in trouble. His latest efforts to impress a girl he met in a bar, land him in hot water with the authorities and his brother lays down the law and insists that Alex join the Navy and make something of his life.
The film jumps into the future where Alex is now dating the very attractive girl from the bar, Samantha (Brooklyn Decker), and trying to get enough courage together to ask her father for permission to marry his daughter. The fact that her father is Admiral Shane (Liam Neeson), only complicates the matter.
Despite holding the rank of an officer, Alex is still extremely headstrong and prone to getting himself in trouble. What what was supposed to be a friendly soccer match during allied naval exercises escalates, and Alex finds himself facing an ignominious exit from the Navy. He’s given a temporary reprieve as the ships in his fleet are suddenly faced with the threat of extraterrestrial origins.
Approximately around the same time Alex entered the Navy, scientists developed a way to amplify radio signals and directed them toward planets they believed could possibly support life. The signals were answered in the form of a hostile force that arrives on Earth only to cut a swath of destruction across the world as well as the naval fleet it encounters. Cut off from the rest of the fleet and reinforcements by an energy field, Alex is forced into command and must confront the deadly enemy at all cost to save the world.
What follows is a series of elaborate special effects that, while visually appealing, fail to pack much punch as the plot and characters are so underwhelming.
I understand that for films this type, especially given the source material, one must give a certain amount of leeway and accept, even grudgingly, the inconsistencies and impracticalities. That being said, not only are the characters about as thin and one-dimensional as they possibly could be, they are for the most part utterly devoid of any interesting qualities nor are they given much in the way of back story that makes us care for their outcomes. R&B star Rihanna spends a good chunk of her time looking tough and menacing, but isn’t given much more to do than occasionally fire a gun.
Kitsch is so utterly bland and unsympathetic that there’s just really no redeeming value to his character. Battleship is supposed to be a story of redemption but instead it’s a story of inconsistencies. Many times throughout the film common sense much less standard military procedures seems to go out the window.
For example, standard rules of engagement tactics were not used early in the film, but yet were readily deployed during the so-called big finale to the film with success. One has to wonder how more seasoned officers with far more resources at their disposal failed to utilize such tactics or have success with the methods that they employed. Yet ironically, this young lieutenant on his first command is able to out-maneuver these aliens when he decides to take to the offensive and lull the enemy into a fairly passive mode where they don’t do much more than watch.
The aliens, while interesting, are given precious little to do other than occasionally destroy or blow something up. We have no idea why they are on earth and to be honest, why they arrived in such small force. If the idea was to conquer Earth, it was poorly planned. Yet if proper procedures were followed, their incursion could have been dealt with very early and easily with the resources at hand. But that would’ve made for a short movie.
What I found puzzling was how surprisingly light on action the movie was. Yes there were firefights but they were spread sparingly throughout the film. You do not have one grand epic battle against overwhelming odds, you do not have legions of enemy troops for the Navy to wade through. It was pretty much a here-it-is-take-it-or-leave it, ho-hum finale.
The film does have some good points with Hawaii as its main backdrop. I did like the fact that there were a lot of active and retired soldiers and sailors used in the filming of the picture. It is clear that the filmmakers wanted to honor the soldiers who have so gallantly served our nation. I just wish they could’ve given them a much better showcase, because truthfully you’ll find far more thrills and enjoyment busting out the actual Battleship game than sitting through the film.
There is a scene post-credits that does hint at possible future installments, but I kept asking myself one question, “Why?” Rumor has it that several years goes Steven Segal attempted to revive his big-screen career by pitching an Under Siege 3 to Universal. Segal supposedly pitched the idea that his character would be on a naval ship that encountered extraterrestrial menace. The studio passed on this idea and, if there’s any truth to the rumor, they should have passed on this idea when it came time to make Battleship.
While Hollywood shows no signs of stopping videogame adaptations anytime soon, game development companies are becoming more savvy with allowing their products to become movies and are requiring uality scripts, cast, and directors before they enter into any film deal. Undaunted, Hollywood turned its eyes on children’s toys for inspiration. With the successful Transformers series, Hasbro has been targeted for their very popular line of board games as source material for future movies.
First out of the box is “Battleship”, director Peter Berg’s big-budget adaptation of the timeless naval strategy game that has been enjoyed for decades by players young and old. Since this is the era of video games, the simplistic style of the board game needed to be tweaked in order to make it appealing for the summer movie masses.
Gone is the classic strategy of the game and in its place, a loud and brash cast of 20-somethings, over-the-top special effects, and a plot riddled with more holes than the classic grids in the game that spawned the film.
Taylor Kitsch follows up his role in John Carter by playing Alex Hopper, a ne’er-do-well who despite the mentoring of his successful naval officer brother (Alexander Skarsgard), never seems to run out of ways to get himself in trouble. His latest efforts to impress a girl he met in a bar, land him in hot water with the authorities and his brother lays down the law and insists that Alex join the Navy and make something of his life.
The film jumps into the future where Alex is now dating the very attractive girl from the bar, Samantha (Brooklyn Decker), and trying to get enough courage together to ask her father for permission to marry his daughter. The fact that her father is Admiral Shane (Liam Neeson), only complicates the matter.
Despite holding the rank of an officer, Alex is still extremely headstrong and prone to getting himself in trouble. What what was supposed to be a friendly soccer match during allied naval exercises escalates, and Alex finds himself facing an ignominious exit from the Navy. He’s given a temporary reprieve as the ships in his fleet are suddenly faced with the threat of extraterrestrial origins.
Approximately around the same time Alex entered the Navy, scientists developed a way to amplify radio signals and directed them toward planets they believed could possibly support life. The signals were answered in the form of a hostile force that arrives on Earth only to cut a swath of destruction across the world as well as the naval fleet it encounters. Cut off from the rest of the fleet and reinforcements by an energy field, Alex is forced into command and must confront the deadly enemy at all cost to save the world.
What follows is a series of elaborate special effects that, while visually appealing, fail to pack much punch as the plot and characters are so underwhelming.
I understand that for films this type, especially given the source material, one must give a certain amount of leeway and accept, even grudgingly, the inconsistencies and impracticalities. That being said, not only are the characters about as thin and one-dimensional as they possibly could be, they are for the most part utterly devoid of any interesting qualities nor are they given much in the way of back story that makes us care for their outcomes. R&B star Rihanna spends a good chunk of her time looking tough and menacing, but isn’t given much more to do than occasionally fire a gun.
Kitsch is so utterly bland and unsympathetic that there’s just really no redeeming value to his character. Battleship is supposed to be a story of redemption but instead it’s a story of inconsistencies. Many times throughout the film common sense much less standard military procedures seems to go out the window.
For example, standard rules of engagement tactics were not used early in the film, but yet were readily deployed during the so-called big finale to the film with success. One has to wonder how more seasoned officers with far more resources at their disposal failed to utilize such tactics or have success with the methods that they employed. Yet ironically, this young lieutenant on his first command is able to out-maneuver these aliens when he decides to take to the offensive and lull the enemy into a fairly passive mode where they don’t do much more than watch.
The aliens, while interesting, are given precious little to do other than occasionally destroy or blow something up. We have no idea why they are on earth and to be honest, why they arrived in such small force. If the idea was to conquer Earth, it was poorly planned. Yet if proper procedures were followed, their incursion could have been dealt with very early and easily with the resources at hand. But that would’ve made for a short movie.
What I found puzzling was how surprisingly light on action the movie was. Yes there were firefights but they were spread sparingly throughout the film. You do not have one grand epic battle against overwhelming odds, you do not have legions of enemy troops for the Navy to wade through. It was pretty much a here-it-is-take-it-or-leave it, ho-hum finale.
The film does have some good points with Hawaii as its main backdrop. I did like the fact that there were a lot of active and retired soldiers and sailors used in the filming of the picture. It is clear that the filmmakers wanted to honor the soldiers who have so gallantly served our nation. I just wish they could’ve given them a much better showcase, because truthfully you’ll find far more thrills and enjoyment busting out the actual Battleship game than sitting through the film.
There is a scene post-credits that does hint at possible future installments, but I kept asking myself one question, “Why?” Rumor has it that several years goes Steven Segal attempted to revive his big-screen career by pitching an Under Siege 3 to Universal. Segal supposedly pitched the idea that his character would be on a naval ship that encountered extraterrestrial menace. The studio passed on this idea and, if there’s any truth to the rumor, they should have passed on this idea when it came time to make Battleship.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.