Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019) in Movies
May 19, 2019 (Updated May 19, 2019)
Great Fight Choreography in a very strong 3rd Chapter
The latest installment of the JOHN WICK story (titled CHAPTER 3 - PARABELLUM) is one long chase scene. It's 2 hours and 10 minutes of John Wick (Keanu Reeves) running and fighting and chasing and fighting and running again and fighting again.
And...that's just fine with me. For JOHN WICK 3 (JW3 as I'll call it from now on) is one of the finest choreographed films (fight scene-wise) that I have seen in quite a long time.
Picking up right after JOHN WICK CHAPTER 2 - JW3 follows John as he is declared "Ex-Communicado" from the underground Assassins organization that he has been a part of, then retired from, then pulled back in with a $14 million bounty on his head.
This flick kicks right into action (literally) with John and a few "red-shirt assassins" taking on each other in a hallway filled with knives. Will all these knives be used in the ensuing fight? You bet they will be - but it is how they are used - and how this scene (and all the fight scenes) are set-up, choreographed, and shot that makes this movie a strong cut above the standard fare in this sort of film.
That's because Director Chad Stahelski - a stunt man/fight coordinator for over 70 films - wisely focuses his attention on the grace, athleticism and strength of the stunts/fights and eschews the "quick-cut edit" style of fight scenes that is so en vogue these days. Stahelski keeps his camera "in place" and lets us, the audience, watch what's going on in (seemingly) long shots that are going to have you saying to yourself "how did they do that". Stahelski has helmed all 3 John Wick films thus far and I hope he helms many, many more.
You'll also be asking yourself how did 53 year old Keanu Reeves do all that fight work? It is incredible, physical work for him - and he is up to the task. John Wick is a man of few words - and much, much action - which suits the acting talents of this performer quite well.
Back for another go in the series - and having fun along the way - are Ian McShane, Lawrence Fishburne and Lance Reddick - as colleagues, collaborators and/or foes of John Wick in this underworld. Capably joining in - with just as much a twinkle in their eyes - are Angelica Huston, Hallee Berry (in her best work in years) and Jerome Flynn (Bron from Game of Thrones). A new addition (at least to me) was the strong work brought forth by Asia Kate Dillon (TV's ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK) as "the Adjudicator" - who is monitoring the John Wick proceedings, Special mention needs to be made of the work of Mark Dacascos (TV's Iron Chef America!) as Wick's chief adversary - a strong effort (both acting-wise and physically/fighting wise) that I just didn't know this performer had in him.
A quick side-note on some animal performances here. There is a scene where a bad guy "gets it" from a horse...and I thought...how are they going to top that...and then immediately top it - GOOD FOR YOU, HORSE! And...a film has FINALLY figured out a way to use attack/guard dogs in a way that had you rooting for these four-legged, furry friends over the fiends they are attacking.
But...make no mistake about this...this film is about the fighting...and the intriguing Assassin's world that was first presented in the original (and I do mean ORIGINAL) John Wick film. I said at the time that I hoped they would expand this world, I wanted to see more of it. And...expand it they have...for the better. The world has become more intriguing to me, and I want EVEN MORE, PLEASE, of this world and of the uniquely original fight choreography that comes along with it.
This film is not for everyone - it is bloody (but in a "cartoon way"...I wouldn't say it is gory) and it is one long chase scene. But, if this is "your thing", you'll enjoy it very much.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...that's just fine with me. For JOHN WICK 3 (JW3 as I'll call it from now on) is one of the finest choreographed films (fight scene-wise) that I have seen in quite a long time.
Picking up right after JOHN WICK CHAPTER 2 - JW3 follows John as he is declared "Ex-Communicado" from the underground Assassins organization that he has been a part of, then retired from, then pulled back in with a $14 million bounty on his head.
This flick kicks right into action (literally) with John and a few "red-shirt assassins" taking on each other in a hallway filled with knives. Will all these knives be used in the ensuing fight? You bet they will be - but it is how they are used - and how this scene (and all the fight scenes) are set-up, choreographed, and shot that makes this movie a strong cut above the standard fare in this sort of film.
That's because Director Chad Stahelski - a stunt man/fight coordinator for over 70 films - wisely focuses his attention on the grace, athleticism and strength of the stunts/fights and eschews the "quick-cut edit" style of fight scenes that is so en vogue these days. Stahelski keeps his camera "in place" and lets us, the audience, watch what's going on in (seemingly) long shots that are going to have you saying to yourself "how did they do that". Stahelski has helmed all 3 John Wick films thus far and I hope he helms many, many more.
You'll also be asking yourself how did 53 year old Keanu Reeves do all that fight work? It is incredible, physical work for him - and he is up to the task. John Wick is a man of few words - and much, much action - which suits the acting talents of this performer quite well.
Back for another go in the series - and having fun along the way - are Ian McShane, Lawrence Fishburne and Lance Reddick - as colleagues, collaborators and/or foes of John Wick in this underworld. Capably joining in - with just as much a twinkle in their eyes - are Angelica Huston, Hallee Berry (in her best work in years) and Jerome Flynn (Bron from Game of Thrones). A new addition (at least to me) was the strong work brought forth by Asia Kate Dillon (TV's ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK) as "the Adjudicator" - who is monitoring the John Wick proceedings, Special mention needs to be made of the work of Mark Dacascos (TV's Iron Chef America!) as Wick's chief adversary - a strong effort (both acting-wise and physically/fighting wise) that I just didn't know this performer had in him.
A quick side-note on some animal performances here. There is a scene where a bad guy "gets it" from a horse...and I thought...how are they going to top that...and then immediately top it - GOOD FOR YOU, HORSE! And...a film has FINALLY figured out a way to use attack/guard dogs in a way that had you rooting for these four-legged, furry friends over the fiends they are attacking.
But...make no mistake about this...this film is about the fighting...and the intriguing Assassin's world that was first presented in the original (and I do mean ORIGINAL) John Wick film. I said at the time that I hoped they would expand this world, I wanted to see more of it. And...expand it they have...for the better. The world has become more intriguing to me, and I want EVEN MORE, PLEASE, of this world and of the uniquely original fight choreography that comes along with it.
This film is not for everyone - it is bloody (but in a "cartoon way"...I wouldn't say it is gory) and it is one long chase scene. But, if this is "your thing", you'll enjoy it very much.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Schrodinger's Film
There is a thought experiment that is used to help make sense of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Say you have a cat, a box and a fragile vial of poison. You put the cat and the poison in the box knowing that the vial may break, you lunatic.
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Like a particularly lethargic sloth
Cinema has a long lasting love of people having their homes invaded by unwanted intruders, and not just because that’s how most directors view anyone who tries to tell them their opinion on filmmaking. It’s because there’s a lot of different directions one can take with the drama and excitement of home invasion. The horror of Wait Until Dark, the brutality of Straw Dogs, the silliness of Home Alone, the potential is quite large. And now throwing in its own interpretation of this theme is The Lady in the Van, based on the somewhat true story of Alan Bennett’s relationship with a transient woman who parked her van on his driveway. So, how does he and the audience respond?
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
"As far as I’m concerned, I came out of the womb spouting cynicism and wishing for rain."
"As far as I’m concerned, I came out of the womb spouting cynicism and wishing for rain."
A while back, I read an online comic strip by the same author, Heartstopper Volume 1. I found it by chance and I literally flew through it. I adored it and I went ahead and TBR’d some of her other books. I found this one on Scribd and come to find this was her baby. This was her debut novel. The story was pretty good, it is NOT a love story, but I sometimes found myself getting frustrated with the main character. Reasons why are listed below.
The story is told from a teenager named Victoria ‘Tori’ Spring. She has two younger brothers and she is quite…indifferent. She has one best friend, and honestly one friend only, and she’s very much the pessimist. I can’t fully fault her for that, but some things that I just CANNOT tolerate. I found myself gasping and GLARING at the words as I read them.
She hates books. Yes, she said she hates books (-1 point). She knows the name of each book and the author who wrote them, but she won’t actually read them.
Though she loves film so I’ll give the point back to her (0).
"When you watch a film, you’re sort of an outsider looking in. With a book – you’re right there. You are inside. You are the main character."
She thinks Pride and Prejudice is ridiculous and boring…she gets positive points for that (+2) – I’m sorry I’m in the minority. I do not care for Jane Austen and find her so called romance novels dull and boring. Not sorry!
She despises Disney because the movies are total fake and unrealistic. WELL NO SHIT! It’s DISNEY! (-200) – I’m a Disney nerd and while I don’t agree with sugar coating the original fair tales, I still LOVE Disney. You can’t fault me for that!
Anyway…
Tori is highly cynical and while I can appreciate that in her, sometimes she made my favorite cartoon character, Daria, seem like a sweetheart. Two guys come into Tori’s life. One was an old childhood friend, Lucas, and the other is someone she met before, Michael. At the same time, a blog group called ‘Solitaire’ starts making trouble…almost in Tori’s honor.
I won’t go into great detail, mostly because I would definitely give more away than I want to. I breezed through this story quickly, but there are just some things in the story that just didn’t sit well with me.
This guy Lucas was so sketchy that he nearly drove Tori crazy with his change in personality.
Her parents…they literally do not seem to care. Her mother most of all. She is mostly on her computer and seems to kind of be absent, mentally, as a parental figure. That never gets resolved, and I don’t know if that’s a good thing or bad thing. In the end, it really bothered me at how disinterested her parents really were. I get that perhaps it’s something you do when you’re bringing up teenagers, but damn!!
"I swear to God I’m a freak! I mean it. One day I’m going to forget how to wake up."
You’re probably thinking that this really doesn’t seem like it would be in the mental health genre. It is. Tori goes through an awful lot in this story, not to mention the mental strain with her brother, Charlie. I will say there are some MILD trigger warnings regarding implied self harm.
I was kind of left with mixed emotions with this book. I have great respect for this author and this being her first story. I know it’s near and dear to her heart. I wouldn’t say that this was at the top of my list, but it’s not at the bottom either. I definitely appreciated it NOT BEING a love story. Although it seemed like it would, despite the subtitle of the book, but I’m glad it wasn’t.
A while back, I read an online comic strip by the same author, Heartstopper Volume 1. I found it by chance and I literally flew through it. I adored it and I went ahead and TBR’d some of her other books. I found this one on Scribd and come to find this was her baby. This was her debut novel. The story was pretty good, it is NOT a love story, but I sometimes found myself getting frustrated with the main character. Reasons why are listed below.
The story is told from a teenager named Victoria ‘Tori’ Spring. She has two younger brothers and she is quite…indifferent. She has one best friend, and honestly one friend only, and she’s very much the pessimist. I can’t fully fault her for that, but some things that I just CANNOT tolerate. I found myself gasping and GLARING at the words as I read them.
She hates books. Yes, she said she hates books (-1 point). She knows the name of each book and the author who wrote them, but she won’t actually read them.
Though she loves film so I’ll give the point back to her (0).
"When you watch a film, you’re sort of an outsider looking in. With a book – you’re right there. You are inside. You are the main character."
She thinks Pride and Prejudice is ridiculous and boring…she gets positive points for that (+2) – I’m sorry I’m in the minority. I do not care for Jane Austen and find her so called romance novels dull and boring. Not sorry!
She despises Disney because the movies are total fake and unrealistic. WELL NO SHIT! It’s DISNEY! (-200) – I’m a Disney nerd and while I don’t agree with sugar coating the original fair tales, I still LOVE Disney. You can’t fault me for that!
Anyway…
Tori is highly cynical and while I can appreciate that in her, sometimes she made my favorite cartoon character, Daria, seem like a sweetheart. Two guys come into Tori’s life. One was an old childhood friend, Lucas, and the other is someone she met before, Michael. At the same time, a blog group called ‘Solitaire’ starts making trouble…almost in Tori’s honor.
I won’t go into great detail, mostly because I would definitely give more away than I want to. I breezed through this story quickly, but there are just some things in the story that just didn’t sit well with me.
This guy Lucas was so sketchy that he nearly drove Tori crazy with his change in personality.
Her parents…they literally do not seem to care. Her mother most of all. She is mostly on her computer and seems to kind of be absent, mentally, as a parental figure. That never gets resolved, and I don’t know if that’s a good thing or bad thing. In the end, it really bothered me at how disinterested her parents really were. I get that perhaps it’s something you do when you’re bringing up teenagers, but damn!!
"I swear to God I’m a freak! I mean it. One day I’m going to forget how to wake up."
You’re probably thinking that this really doesn’t seem like it would be in the mental health genre. It is. Tori goes through an awful lot in this story, not to mention the mental strain with her brother, Charlie. I will say there are some MILD trigger warnings regarding implied self harm.
I was kind of left with mixed emotions with this book. I have great respect for this author and this being her first story. I know it’s near and dear to her heart. I wouldn’t say that this was at the top of my list, but it’s not at the bottom either. I definitely appreciated it NOT BEING a love story. Although it seemed like it would, despite the subtitle of the book, but I’m glad it wasn’t.
Animal Face Photo App: Snap Dog.gy Face Pic Editor
Lifestyle and Games
App
▶▶▶Join all the image editing fans in placing animal faces on pics and making funny face photo...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wolfwalkers (2020) in Movies
Oct 11, 2020
Coming into this I wasn't sure what to expect, an animated Apple TV film... hmm.
Robyn comes to Ireland with her father, e's been given the job of ridding the area of a pack of wolves that are venturing closer and closer to the town. Keen to hunt just like her father, Robyn sneaks out of the safety of their walled town and into the forest after him. Once there she comes face to face with a wolf, but the encounter isn't what she expected. When she eventually meets Mebh, a wild spirit who lives out in the woods, she discovers what the legend of the wolkwalkers truly means and must find a way to save the pack, and her new friend, from the wrath of the Lord Protector and her father.
The phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" hasn't felt quite so accurate as it does now. When the film starts it has the delicacy of an illustrated picture book (with a hint of Gravity Falls), the colour palette is muted and the strokes look haphazard while being in exactly the right place... and I haven't liked this style of illustration... ever... in the 19 years I was in the book industry. It feels old fashioned (yes, I know that fits with its story) and I immediately felt myself grumble at the fact I was about to sit through a whole film of it.
Wolfwalkers' story is a nice mix of folk story and themes of family and friendship. We follow Robyn as she tries desperately to break free of societies rules and those of her overprotective father, and the overall effect is a surprisingly motivational film about protecting people and doing the right thing.
The only names I recognised off the cast list were Sean Bean and Simon McBurney, and both had the right tone for this film... though Bean ever so slightly like he wasn't always acting to the best of his abilities... but that's not really noticeable when you get swept up in everything.
Our two young ladies in the cast, Honor Kneafsey as Robyn and Eva Whittaker as Mebh, were a delightful match, and when the pair were together on screen they have an amazing chemistry together.
But I want to talk about my favourite thing, and that is very specifically, Mebh. Casting, animation, script, she gets the best of everything that was thrown at this film. Her style is so amazingly accurate for the tale and her story and you can see it in every scene. Her wild characteristics, her playful nature, had all been carefully added to every moment we see her. Whittaker's enthusiastic and emotional vocals bring it all to life in such a wonderful way. Mebh is a delightful creation and full of comedic moments that really made me smile... and that hair... brilliant.
Wolfwalkers' animation (by Cartoon Saloon) might not have been to my taste in the beginning but, with the story and the amazing characters, I soon started to forget about my initial peeves. The design of everything really helps to explain the surroundings, the light and dark of the forest when we first encounter it and then evolves as we progress. The visuals when the townies start encroaching are sad but have a stunning reality to them and in the run-up to the end of the film the way they portray those events is a massive change to the style and makes for a harrowing watch. They've also come up with an ingenious way of showing the wolves and the magic that they're regarded within the story, it's an impressive visual.
All of these wonderful things were topped off with a beautiful soundtrack. Everything fits perfectly, particularly the song "Running With The Wolves" by Aurora, which gave me chills to hear.
Starting this film with such a negative feeling I really didn't think I'd be able to turn it around, but as I watched on and got pulled deeper into the tale and the characters, well, you can tell by my rating that my mind was quickly changed. Wolfwalkers was a beautiful and emotional ride that I would not hesitate to recommend to anyone.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/wolfwalkers-movie-review.html
Robyn comes to Ireland with her father, e's been given the job of ridding the area of a pack of wolves that are venturing closer and closer to the town. Keen to hunt just like her father, Robyn sneaks out of the safety of their walled town and into the forest after him. Once there she comes face to face with a wolf, but the encounter isn't what she expected. When she eventually meets Mebh, a wild spirit who lives out in the woods, she discovers what the legend of the wolkwalkers truly means and must find a way to save the pack, and her new friend, from the wrath of the Lord Protector and her father.
The phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" hasn't felt quite so accurate as it does now. When the film starts it has the delicacy of an illustrated picture book (with a hint of Gravity Falls), the colour palette is muted and the strokes look haphazard while being in exactly the right place... and I haven't liked this style of illustration... ever... in the 19 years I was in the book industry. It feels old fashioned (yes, I know that fits with its story) and I immediately felt myself grumble at the fact I was about to sit through a whole film of it.
Wolfwalkers' story is a nice mix of folk story and themes of family and friendship. We follow Robyn as she tries desperately to break free of societies rules and those of her overprotective father, and the overall effect is a surprisingly motivational film about protecting people and doing the right thing.
The only names I recognised off the cast list were Sean Bean and Simon McBurney, and both had the right tone for this film... though Bean ever so slightly like he wasn't always acting to the best of his abilities... but that's not really noticeable when you get swept up in everything.
Our two young ladies in the cast, Honor Kneafsey as Robyn and Eva Whittaker as Mebh, were a delightful match, and when the pair were together on screen they have an amazing chemistry together.
But I want to talk about my favourite thing, and that is very specifically, Mebh. Casting, animation, script, she gets the best of everything that was thrown at this film. Her style is so amazingly accurate for the tale and her story and you can see it in every scene. Her wild characteristics, her playful nature, had all been carefully added to every moment we see her. Whittaker's enthusiastic and emotional vocals bring it all to life in such a wonderful way. Mebh is a delightful creation and full of comedic moments that really made me smile... and that hair... brilliant.
Wolfwalkers' animation (by Cartoon Saloon) might not have been to my taste in the beginning but, with the story and the amazing characters, I soon started to forget about my initial peeves. The design of everything really helps to explain the surroundings, the light and dark of the forest when we first encounter it and then evolves as we progress. The visuals when the townies start encroaching are sad but have a stunning reality to them and in the run-up to the end of the film the way they portray those events is a massive change to the style and makes for a harrowing watch. They've also come up with an ingenious way of showing the wolves and the magic that they're regarded within the story, it's an impressive visual.
All of these wonderful things were topped off with a beautiful soundtrack. Everything fits perfectly, particularly the song "Running With The Wolves" by Aurora, which gave me chills to hear.
Starting this film with such a negative feeling I really didn't think I'd be able to turn it around, but as I watched on and got pulled deeper into the tale and the characters, well, you can tell by my rating that my mind was quickly changed. Wolfwalkers was a beautiful and emotional ride that I would not hesitate to recommend to anyone.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/wolfwalkers-movie-review.html
Split Screen Multitasking View for iPhone & iPad
Utilities and Productivity
App
Ranked #1 iPhone & iPad Utility App in 28 Countries, Split Screen Multitasking app DuMore also...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film that leaves you in two minds.
After all the terrible reviews of this movie (“The Times” reviewer described it as “excreble” which is harsh indeed) I was steeling myself to reach for my 1* rating. I was happy to find that it wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting it to be. Indeed parts of it were positively good fun.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Incredibles 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Was it worth the wait?
It’s been fourteen years since Pixar introduced the likes of Violet, Dash, Robert and Helen Parr onto unsuspecting audiences across the globe. The quartet of superheroes swiftly became one of the studio’s best and most profitable films, with a loyal legion of fans begging for a sequel soon after.
Nevertheless, Pixar went on to create some of the greatest animated films of all time. Then the slump came. After Cars and its dreadful sequel came and went and The Good Dinosaur reminded us that not even Pixar was immune from the movie critic curse, they swiftly regrouped and brought us the thrilling Coco and new classic, Inside Out. Now, 14 years later, Mr Incredible and the team are back. But are we looking at a classic Pixar, or a sequel that is too little too late?
Everyone’s favourite family of superheroes is back, but this time Helen (Holly Hunter) is in the spotlight, leaving Bob (Craig T. Nelson) at home with Violet (Sarah Vowell) and Dash (Huck Milner) to navigate the day-to-day heroics of normal life. It’s a tough transition for everyone, made tougher by the fact that the family is unaware of Jack-Jack’s superpowers. When a new villain hatches a dangerous plot, the family and Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) must find a way to work together again.
Picking up immediately after the events of its predecessor, Incredibles 2 is a thrilling and entertaining sequel that reeks of quality. Everything from the voice acting to the animation is leaps and bounds ahead of the first film and this is testament to the incredible technological gains Pixar has made over the last decade.
Brad Bird is once again in the director’s chair and that familiarity lends it the same heart and emotional engagement of its predecessor. We, as the audience, feel truly invested in the characters again, as we did all that time ago. This time however, the action is dialled up to 11 with some truly exceptional set-pieces.
Thankfully, this is not at the cost of what made The Incredibles such a hit, family drama. The central family unit remains as prevalent as it did before, but this time we have Jack-Jack’s powers thrown into the mix with Elastigirl taking centre stage over Mr. Incredible. This new dynamic is a welcome change from the very male-centric blockbusters we’ve had over the last few years; Wonder Woman being the obvious exception.
The animation is, well incredible. While the quirky character designs never let you forget you’re watching an animated feature, the over-the-top set design means it sits perfectly together. Where The Good Dinosaur went wrong was in its presentation of photo-realistic visuals paired with cartoon-like characters; it simply didn’t work.
Incredibles 2 is a sequel that was absolutely worth the wait
We also have a very interesting villain to contend with. The Screenslaver is pure popcorn wickedness at its very best. It’s amazing that The Incredibles series has scored 2/2 when it comes to their antagonists, yet Marvel still manages to struggle with its bad guys. The Screenslaver may not quite match up the brilliance of Syndrome from its predecessor, but it comes pretty close.
There’s also the welcome return of Edna Mode (voiced by director Brad Bird). Her part is perhaps a little too short, but maintaining her cameo status means she doesn’t feel as overcooked as the minions did after their first solo outing. In the end, we want more Edna, rather than having too much and this is a good thing.
Plot wise, it’s fantastic. With a central storyline about a changing family dynamic, it’s sure to resonate with both children and adults. There are plot twists that wouldn’t look out of place in a live-action feature and some great voice acting by all of the cast.
Negatives? Well it’s hard to think of any whatsoever. This is a much more engaging film than its predecessor but at 118 minutes, it’s long by animation standards. The pacing is a little off just before the finale kicks off, but this is my main and only complaint.
Overall, Incredibles 2 is a sequel that was absolutely worth the wait. It’s filled with sparkling dialogue and great voice acting as well as superb animation and a thrilling plot that all combines to make it one of the year’s best films.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/07/15/incredibles-2-review-was-it-worth-the-wait/
Nevertheless, Pixar went on to create some of the greatest animated films of all time. Then the slump came. After Cars and its dreadful sequel came and went and The Good Dinosaur reminded us that not even Pixar was immune from the movie critic curse, they swiftly regrouped and brought us the thrilling Coco and new classic, Inside Out. Now, 14 years later, Mr Incredible and the team are back. But are we looking at a classic Pixar, or a sequel that is too little too late?
Everyone’s favourite family of superheroes is back, but this time Helen (Holly Hunter) is in the spotlight, leaving Bob (Craig T. Nelson) at home with Violet (Sarah Vowell) and Dash (Huck Milner) to navigate the day-to-day heroics of normal life. It’s a tough transition for everyone, made tougher by the fact that the family is unaware of Jack-Jack’s superpowers. When a new villain hatches a dangerous plot, the family and Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) must find a way to work together again.
Picking up immediately after the events of its predecessor, Incredibles 2 is a thrilling and entertaining sequel that reeks of quality. Everything from the voice acting to the animation is leaps and bounds ahead of the first film and this is testament to the incredible technological gains Pixar has made over the last decade.
Brad Bird is once again in the director’s chair and that familiarity lends it the same heart and emotional engagement of its predecessor. We, as the audience, feel truly invested in the characters again, as we did all that time ago. This time however, the action is dialled up to 11 with some truly exceptional set-pieces.
Thankfully, this is not at the cost of what made The Incredibles such a hit, family drama. The central family unit remains as prevalent as it did before, but this time we have Jack-Jack’s powers thrown into the mix with Elastigirl taking centre stage over Mr. Incredible. This new dynamic is a welcome change from the very male-centric blockbusters we’ve had over the last few years; Wonder Woman being the obvious exception.
The animation is, well incredible. While the quirky character designs never let you forget you’re watching an animated feature, the over-the-top set design means it sits perfectly together. Where The Good Dinosaur went wrong was in its presentation of photo-realistic visuals paired with cartoon-like characters; it simply didn’t work.
Incredibles 2 is a sequel that was absolutely worth the wait
We also have a very interesting villain to contend with. The Screenslaver is pure popcorn wickedness at its very best. It’s amazing that The Incredibles series has scored 2/2 when it comes to their antagonists, yet Marvel still manages to struggle with its bad guys. The Screenslaver may not quite match up the brilliance of Syndrome from its predecessor, but it comes pretty close.
There’s also the welcome return of Edna Mode (voiced by director Brad Bird). Her part is perhaps a little too short, but maintaining her cameo status means she doesn’t feel as overcooked as the minions did after their first solo outing. In the end, we want more Edna, rather than having too much and this is a good thing.
Plot wise, it’s fantastic. With a central storyline about a changing family dynamic, it’s sure to resonate with both children and adults. There are plot twists that wouldn’t look out of place in a live-action feature and some great voice acting by all of the cast.
Negatives? Well it’s hard to think of any whatsoever. This is a much more engaging film than its predecessor but at 118 minutes, it’s long by animation standards. The pacing is a little off just before the finale kicks off, but this is my main and only complaint.
Overall, Incredibles 2 is a sequel that was absolutely worth the wait. It’s filled with sparkling dialogue and great voice acting as well as superb animation and a thrilling plot that all combines to make it one of the year’s best films.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/07/15/incredibles-2-review-was-it-worth-the-wait/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Tim Burton and the flying elephant
If you had told me 15 years ago that Tim Burton would be directing a live-action adaptation of Disney’s classic, Dumbo I would’ve been overwhelmed with excitement. The director, famed for his unique sense of gothic style and visual flair has directed some of the best films ever made.
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/