Search
Search results
David McK (3453 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Mar 15, 2020
Sci-Fi romance starring Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence (with support from Michael Sheen and Laurence Fishbourne) as two travellers aboard an interstellar vessel, who awaken out of hibernation 30 years into a 90 year journey (I think those are both right) to their new home planet, with no means of getting back to sleep or of waking up any other passengers or crew.
What follows, then, mostly - of necessity - follows those two characters (and Sheen's android bartender), asking just what you would do in their circumstances? How would you live out your life?
Beautiful cinematography and some fancy effects, however, can not fully make up for (at times) as dull as dishwater and leaden pacing ...
What follows, then, mostly - of necessity - follows those two characters (and Sheen's android bartender), asking just what you would do in their circumstances? How would you live out your life?
Beautiful cinematography and some fancy effects, however, can not fully make up for (at times) as dull as dishwater and leaden pacing ...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Guilt trip.
“Passengers” is not a film that you can really talk about in much depth without straying into spoiler territory, so I will break my normal tradition of my reviews being entirely “Spoiler Free” and add a further discussion (but below the Fad Rating, so you are safe ‘til there).
The backdrop for “Passengers” is the spaceship “Avalon”, on a 120 year trip taking Earth colonists to the new world of “Homestead 2”. Following an ‘incident’ the story finds two individuals – Jim Preston, played by Chris “Jurassic World” Pratt, and Jennifer “Joy” Lawrence – as the only passengers awake on the automated ship among 5000+ other slumbering souls. It rather goes without saying that with two attractive and bankable Hollywood stars and nothing else to do, the two ‘get it on’. With things on the ship going from bad to worse, the two must work as a team to try to save the ship, crew and fellow passengers from disaster.
As a fan of sci-fi, I’ll start with a positive that the Avalon is a gloriously rendered spacecraft, and many of the scenes of space walking present beautiful cinematography (by Rodrigo Prieto of “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Argo”). Many of the other special effects in the film – led by special effects supervisor Daniel Sudick, of the Marvel franchise – are spectacularly good, especially one which demonstrates why the lifeguards closed the pool on the International Space Station!
The overall premise of the film is also original and well-conceived, setting up the backdrop for some serious post-watch ethical debate (see spoiler section).
Where the wheels came off for me though is with the script by Jon Spaihts (“Prometheus”, “Doctor Strange”). Some of the dialogue is just appallingly trite, and some of the supposed capabilities of our hero, Preston, are laughable. For example, he possesses an uncanny ability as “an engineer” to open a cabinet of electronics, scan the circuits and say “Nope – that all looks fine”: the next time my washing machine controller packs in, he’s going to be on my speed-dial for sure! And (cue trite line – “every component on the ship has a spare”) Preston immediately finds the required part (curiously, it’s right next to the failing component and not in Bay 67 on cargo deck 327!) and knows how to plug and play it as required.
Chris Pratt; Jennifer Lawrence
Pratt and Lawrence, with Pratt about to debug my washing machine controller just by looking at it.
But, for me, there was one particularly dire point in the script where Spaihts obviously forgets which film he’s writing the scene for and ‘goes superhero’: oh, hang on, Preston doesn’t HAVE any superhero powers! For me, any goodwill the story had built up through to that point get vented into space.
The director is Morten Tyldum, whose “Headhunters” I really enjoyed but who is probably more famous for “The Imitation Game”. Not overawed by the production’s scale, he does a great job of getting good performances out of the rather wooden action hunk that is Chris Pratt and the reliable Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence who (apart from one dramatic and emotional scene) the script doesn’t really stretch. Michael Sheen is also a great watch as the witty and dry android bar-tender.
In summary, this was a nice premise with great special effects and gorgeous production design, but frustratingly let down with a weak screenplay. With a better script and another 10% of tweaking, this could have been a real sci-fi classic.
The backdrop for “Passengers” is the spaceship “Avalon”, on a 120 year trip taking Earth colonists to the new world of “Homestead 2”. Following an ‘incident’ the story finds two individuals – Jim Preston, played by Chris “Jurassic World” Pratt, and Jennifer “Joy” Lawrence – as the only passengers awake on the automated ship among 5000+ other slumbering souls. It rather goes without saying that with two attractive and bankable Hollywood stars and nothing else to do, the two ‘get it on’. With things on the ship going from bad to worse, the two must work as a team to try to save the ship, crew and fellow passengers from disaster.
As a fan of sci-fi, I’ll start with a positive that the Avalon is a gloriously rendered spacecraft, and many of the scenes of space walking present beautiful cinematography (by Rodrigo Prieto of “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Argo”). Many of the other special effects in the film – led by special effects supervisor Daniel Sudick, of the Marvel franchise – are spectacularly good, especially one which demonstrates why the lifeguards closed the pool on the International Space Station!
The overall premise of the film is also original and well-conceived, setting up the backdrop for some serious post-watch ethical debate (see spoiler section).
Where the wheels came off for me though is with the script by Jon Spaihts (“Prometheus”, “Doctor Strange”). Some of the dialogue is just appallingly trite, and some of the supposed capabilities of our hero, Preston, are laughable. For example, he possesses an uncanny ability as “an engineer” to open a cabinet of electronics, scan the circuits and say “Nope – that all looks fine”: the next time my washing machine controller packs in, he’s going to be on my speed-dial for sure! And (cue trite line – “every component on the ship has a spare”) Preston immediately finds the required part (curiously, it’s right next to the failing component and not in Bay 67 on cargo deck 327!) and knows how to plug and play it as required.
Chris Pratt; Jennifer Lawrence
Pratt and Lawrence, with Pratt about to debug my washing machine controller just by looking at it.
But, for me, there was one particularly dire point in the script where Spaihts obviously forgets which film he’s writing the scene for and ‘goes superhero’: oh, hang on, Preston doesn’t HAVE any superhero powers! For me, any goodwill the story had built up through to that point get vented into space.
The director is Morten Tyldum, whose “Headhunters” I really enjoyed but who is probably more famous for “The Imitation Game”. Not overawed by the production’s scale, he does a great job of getting good performances out of the rather wooden action hunk that is Chris Pratt and the reliable Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence who (apart from one dramatic and emotional scene) the script doesn’t really stretch. Michael Sheen is also a great watch as the witty and dry android bar-tender.
In summary, this was a nice premise with great special effects and gorgeous production design, but frustratingly let down with a weak screenplay. With a better script and another 10% of tweaking, this could have been a real sci-fi classic.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Titanic in the Sky
Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence are two of the world’s most bankable stars. What with Pratt helping to resurrect prehistoric franchises like Jurassic Park and Lawrence turning The Hunger Games series into one of the biggest ever, it seems they are the people Hollywood wants to work with, right here, right now.
It was inevitable they’d team up together at some point, though director Mortem Tyldum’s (The Imitation Game) sci-fi flick Passengers perhaps isn’t what their fan-bases had in mind. But do the pair sizzle together as much as they do apart?
On a routine journey through space to a new home, two passengers, sleeping in suspended animation, are awakened 90 years too early when their ship malfunctions. As Jim (Pratt) and Aurora (Lawrence) face living the rest of their lives on board, with every luxury they could ever ask for, they begin to fall for each other, unable to deny their intense attraction until they discover the ship is in grave danger. With the lives of 5,000 sleeping passengers at stake, only Jim and Aurora can save them all.
Adding to the ever expanding sci-fi universe, Passengers is a slickly directed and engrossing film with a coat of varnish like no other movie this year. It certainly looks the part, though it’s probably best not to scratch beneath the surface of this Titanic in the sky, as much like the Starship Avalon on which our unlucky duo are stranded on, there’s not much going on underneath.
Pratt and Lawrence thankfully have an intense chemistry together, and that’s a good thing considering they are, by and large, the only two characters throughout. Propping up a 2 hour film is no easy feat and its testament to their talents that they are able to do so. Sure, their dialogue is a little cheesy, but they’re likeable enough to warrant a pardon this time around.
Elsewhere, Michael Sheen comes close to stealing the show as an enthusiastic android bartender, providing yet another great droid to add to the genre’s roster. Alan Tudyk from last week’s Rogue One also showed how deep these mechanical characters can be.
The special effects are on the whole very good, though there are a few instances of CGI that don’t quite hit the spot. The Avalon itself however is fantastically realised and scenes like the much-marketed swimming pool gravity loss are stunning to watch, all the while helped by Pratt and Lawrence’s brilliant acting skills.
There is one big problem however. The story. There are numerous elements to the plot that aren’t mentioned in the trailer, so I won’t spoil them for you here, but Passengers has seriously miscalculated a couple of elements to Pratt and Lawrence’s relationship – with a sudden third act tonal shift leaving a sour taste in the mouth.
Luckily, these flaws don’t detract from what is a thrilling rollercoaster from start to finish. Whilst it may not be as deep and meaningful as Ridley Scott’s The Martian, Passengers has an immersive quality – it’s like being on-board the Avalon, and with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence keeping us company, who can blame us for going along for the ride.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/22/titanic-in-the-sky-passengers-review/
It was inevitable they’d team up together at some point, though director Mortem Tyldum’s (The Imitation Game) sci-fi flick Passengers perhaps isn’t what their fan-bases had in mind. But do the pair sizzle together as much as they do apart?
On a routine journey through space to a new home, two passengers, sleeping in suspended animation, are awakened 90 years too early when their ship malfunctions. As Jim (Pratt) and Aurora (Lawrence) face living the rest of their lives on board, with every luxury they could ever ask for, they begin to fall for each other, unable to deny their intense attraction until they discover the ship is in grave danger. With the lives of 5,000 sleeping passengers at stake, only Jim and Aurora can save them all.
Adding to the ever expanding sci-fi universe, Passengers is a slickly directed and engrossing film with a coat of varnish like no other movie this year. It certainly looks the part, though it’s probably best not to scratch beneath the surface of this Titanic in the sky, as much like the Starship Avalon on which our unlucky duo are stranded on, there’s not much going on underneath.
Pratt and Lawrence thankfully have an intense chemistry together, and that’s a good thing considering they are, by and large, the only two characters throughout. Propping up a 2 hour film is no easy feat and its testament to their talents that they are able to do so. Sure, their dialogue is a little cheesy, but they’re likeable enough to warrant a pardon this time around.
Elsewhere, Michael Sheen comes close to stealing the show as an enthusiastic android bartender, providing yet another great droid to add to the genre’s roster. Alan Tudyk from last week’s Rogue One also showed how deep these mechanical characters can be.
The special effects are on the whole very good, though there are a few instances of CGI that don’t quite hit the spot. The Avalon itself however is fantastically realised and scenes like the much-marketed swimming pool gravity loss are stunning to watch, all the while helped by Pratt and Lawrence’s brilliant acting skills.
There is one big problem however. The story. There are numerous elements to the plot that aren’t mentioned in the trailer, so I won’t spoil them for you here, but Passengers has seriously miscalculated a couple of elements to Pratt and Lawrence’s relationship – with a sudden third act tonal shift leaving a sour taste in the mouth.
Luckily, these flaws don’t detract from what is a thrilling rollercoaster from start to finish. Whilst it may not be as deep and meaningful as Ridley Scott’s The Martian, Passengers has an immersive quality – it’s like being on-board the Avalon, and with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence keeping us company, who can blame us for going along for the ride.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/22/titanic-in-the-sky-passengers-review/
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Jul 31, 2017
Casting (1 more)
Effects
A space Titanic
This is basically Titanic set in space, albeit a much better film than Titanic will ever be.
Let's get it straight, this is not a full blown sci-fi epic. This is a romantic love story set in space, with some sci-fi elements thrown in. As long as you can accept that, then this is a really good film. Yes the romance part of the story is pretty predictable, but for me this didn't matter due to the sheer likeability and chemistry between Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. They did get a great job of holding a film virtually all on their own, although Michael Sheen was a delight in all of his scenes too. The special effects too were very impressive and this is definitely one of the better films I saw in the new year.
Let's get it straight, this is not a full blown sci-fi epic. This is a romantic love story set in space, with some sci-fi elements thrown in. As long as you can accept that, then this is a really good film. Yes the romance part of the story is pretty predictable, but for me this didn't matter due to the sheer likeability and chemistry between Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. They did get a great job of holding a film virtually all on their own, although Michael Sheen was a delight in all of his scenes too. The special effects too were very impressive and this is definitely one of the better films I saw in the new year.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Dec 6, 2017
Not as Bad as the Critics Said
Passengers works for me largely in part due to the great chemistry between Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. Their relationship is believable, real. Exactly what I would expect from two people stuck in a space paradise together. I try to avoid words like "sizzle" and "spice" when describing onscreen pairings, but it's 7:30pm on a Tuesday night and I have folded clothes to put away. So....Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence absolutely sizzle onscreen together! Free from the inhibitions of watching eyes the duo adds real spice to the film's flavor. Yep, that just happened. No regrets. Yolo.
I was surprised by how solid the film was from beginning to end. The mark of a great movie for me is consistency throughout, the same measure I use to judge a good key lime pie. Passengers kept me engaged for its entirety without managing to overstay its welcome. It's funny in parts while being touching in others. Overall the pace works.
The special effects were also impressive. The inside of the ship where most of the story takes place is a carnival of sights. Its futuristic yet a familiar touch of home at the same time. The recesses of space were captured in brilliant fashion. As main character Jim Preston (Pratt) goes exploring the expanse, you start to realize just how small and lonely he must feel in comparison.
When Preston awakens on a craft headed for another planet, he realizes the ship pulled him from hibernation too soon. It isn't long before he is joined by Aurora Lane (Lawrence) who has to help him figure out why the ship woke them up early before things go terribly wrong.
The only thing holding this film back from being great as opposed to "just ok" is implausibility. There are quite a few things that happen, both from a scientific standpoint and plot advancement standpoint, that may leave you scratching your head a bit. This film falls victim at times of trying to take shortcuts. However, if you can suspend your disbelief for just long enough and turn a blind eye, you won't be disappointed.
Some films are reviewed badly because they're...well...bad. Other films fall victim to what I call Pile-On: A few critics from the "In Crowd" don't like it so everyone else is supposed to hate it as well (see The Hitman's Bodyguard). I think Passengers suffer from the latter. See it. It won't change your life, but a great way to spend two hours nonetheless. I give it a 73.
I was surprised by how solid the film was from beginning to end. The mark of a great movie for me is consistency throughout, the same measure I use to judge a good key lime pie. Passengers kept me engaged for its entirety without managing to overstay its welcome. It's funny in parts while being touching in others. Overall the pace works.
The special effects were also impressive. The inside of the ship where most of the story takes place is a carnival of sights. Its futuristic yet a familiar touch of home at the same time. The recesses of space were captured in brilliant fashion. As main character Jim Preston (Pratt) goes exploring the expanse, you start to realize just how small and lonely he must feel in comparison.
When Preston awakens on a craft headed for another planet, he realizes the ship pulled him from hibernation too soon. It isn't long before he is joined by Aurora Lane (Lawrence) who has to help him figure out why the ship woke them up early before things go terribly wrong.
The only thing holding this film back from being great as opposed to "just ok" is implausibility. There are quite a few things that happen, both from a scientific standpoint and plot advancement standpoint, that may leave you scratching your head a bit. This film falls victim at times of trying to take shortcuts. However, if you can suspend your disbelief for just long enough and turn a blind eye, you won't be disappointed.
Some films are reviewed badly because they're...well...bad. Other films fall victim to what I call Pile-On: A few critics from the "In Crowd" don't like it so everyone else is supposed to hate it as well (see The Hitman's Bodyguard). I think Passengers suffer from the latter. See it. It won't change your life, but a great way to spend two hours nonetheless. I give it a 73.
David McK (3453 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
Jun 5, 2022
So, the pop-culture behometh that was (is?) 'The Hunger Games'.
It's a trilogy of Young Adult (I hate that term! Us older adults can like them, too ...) novels, made into a quartet of movies.
This is the first in both the novels and the movie series.
While, yes, I have read those novels - I'm not sure, but maybe after originally having watched this film back in 2012 or so? - I can't really remember the full ins and outs of the plot - except the obvious! - although I am sure that, as always, liberties will have been taken, as movies and prose are two distinct mediums.
Set in the future dystopia of Panem (post apocalyptic America?), once every year the 12 districts are forced to randomly choose and send two teenagers - one boy and a girl - to The Capitol to participate in a televised fight to the death inside a giant man-made arena. Katniss Everdeen is one of those chosen from District 12, volunteering to take her sister's place when her sisters name is chosen during her first year of mandatory participation. The film (like what I remember from the book) draws a clear distinction between those from The Capitol - who view this all as a grand sport, and who are very definitely the haves of this world against those from the various districts (the have nots), while also taking the opportunity to make a point about how those in power can treat and abuse those without.
Yes, it's violent.
Yes, I'm sure some of the bloodier parts of the book were cut in order to get the PG-13 rating it does.
Yes, Jennifer Lawrence shines in the lead role
Yes, that *is* Chris Hemsworth's (otherwise known as the MCU's Thor) brother Liam.
It's a trilogy of Young Adult (I hate that term! Us older adults can like them, too ...) novels, made into a quartet of movies.
This is the first in both the novels and the movie series.
While, yes, I have read those novels - I'm not sure, but maybe after originally having watched this film back in 2012 or so? - I can't really remember the full ins and outs of the plot - except the obvious! - although I am sure that, as always, liberties will have been taken, as movies and prose are two distinct mediums.
Set in the future dystopia of Panem (post apocalyptic America?), once every year the 12 districts are forced to randomly choose and send two teenagers - one boy and a girl - to The Capitol to participate in a televised fight to the death inside a giant man-made arena. Katniss Everdeen is one of those chosen from District 12, volunteering to take her sister's place when her sisters name is chosen during her first year of mandatory participation. The film (like what I remember from the book) draws a clear distinction between those from The Capitol - who view this all as a grand sport, and who are very definitely the haves of this world against those from the various districts (the have nots), while also taking the opportunity to make a point about how those in power can treat and abuse those without.
Yes, it's violent.
Yes, I'm sure some of the bloodier parts of the book were cut in order to get the PG-13 rating it does.
Yes, Jennifer Lawrence shines in the lead role
Yes, that *is* Chris Hemsworth's (otherwise known as the MCU's Thor) brother Liam.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Silver Linings Playbook (2012) in Movies
Feb 17, 2019
Classic
A man trying to piece his life together after being released from a mental institution befriends a woman just as whacky and out of control as he is.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 5
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 8
Silver Linings Playbook is a unique story about finding The One while finding your way. It’s a wild ride of storytelling where you hope it plays out in a certain fashion, but you’re never really sure. It’s hilarious, thought-provoking, and touching all at once. A definite classic.
Memorability: 10
One of my favorite scenes in this whole movie occurs when Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) confronts Pat (Bradley Cooper) after he missed their scheduled dance practice. It’s a brilliant scene where Tiffany and Pat Sr. (Robert De Niro) go back and forth about why missing practice was the worst thing Pat Jr. could have done. There are quite a few moments like these where the dialogue is just right and the scene unfolds perfectly. These moments not only captivate your attention but have you anticipating the next great moment.
Pace: 10
And it’s because of those moments that the overall pace is managed so well. Outside of a slow beginning, the story moves at an extremely consistent pace. Sometimes funny, sometimes touching, and sometimes both, it forces you through the story while you ride an emotional high.
Plot: 10
The originality of the story gives me nothing to compare it to and that’s a great thing. It’s a film that succeeds by staying in its own lane and not trying to be anything else. It also succeeds with consistency: There are no holes or weaknesses that make the overall story come up short.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 91
Memorable scenes abound in Silver Linings Playbook. Anytime Chris Tucker shows up randomly, you know it’s going to be a good time. It’s not just a good movie, but a movie with staying power. The more I watch it, the more I end up loving it.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 5
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 8
Silver Linings Playbook is a unique story about finding The One while finding your way. It’s a wild ride of storytelling where you hope it plays out in a certain fashion, but you’re never really sure. It’s hilarious, thought-provoking, and touching all at once. A definite classic.
Memorability: 10
One of my favorite scenes in this whole movie occurs when Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) confronts Pat (Bradley Cooper) after he missed their scheduled dance practice. It’s a brilliant scene where Tiffany and Pat Sr. (Robert De Niro) go back and forth about why missing practice was the worst thing Pat Jr. could have done. There are quite a few moments like these where the dialogue is just right and the scene unfolds perfectly. These moments not only captivate your attention but have you anticipating the next great moment.
Pace: 10
And it’s because of those moments that the overall pace is managed so well. Outside of a slow beginning, the story moves at an extremely consistent pace. Sometimes funny, sometimes touching, and sometimes both, it forces you through the story while you ride an emotional high.
Plot: 10
The originality of the story gives me nothing to compare it to and that’s a great thing. It’s a film that succeeds by staying in its own lane and not trying to be anything else. It also succeeds with consistency: There are no holes or weaknesses that make the overall story come up short.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 91
Memorable scenes abound in Silver Linings Playbook. Anytime Chris Tucker shows up randomly, you know it’s going to be a good time. It’s not just a good movie, but a movie with staying power. The more I watch it, the more I end up loving it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hamilton (2020) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
Captures the power of being in "the room where it happens"
I'll just cut to the chase, the filmed version of the mega-hit stage musical HAMILTON (now streaming on Disney+) is terrific. If you are one of the few that have not seen this, check it out - you'll be glad you did.
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) is a man looking for a fresh start on a new world. Along with 5000 other passengers; Jim is sleeping away the 120 year journey in stasis aboard a luxury ship. In the new film “Passengers”, Jim finds his entire world turned upside down when he is awakened 90 years before the completion of his trip. Alone with no way to return to stasis; Jim struggles to keep his wits as despite having food and recreation readily available, his only companions are server robots and an Android bartender named Arthur (Michael Sheen).
Unable to wake any of the crew to assist him with the situation or access the bridge of the ship, Jim uses his engineering skills to study the operations of the ship as well as gain access to areas normally reserved for VIP passengers.
As time goes by Jim becomes more and more despondent because he cannot even contact anyone on earth as the computer informs him that it will take 36 years for reply to any of his messages to reach the ship and he grows weary of the thought of spending the rest of his life alone.
During one of his frequent visits to his former stasis chamber, Jim discovers an attractive passenger named Aurora (Jennifer Lawrence), and using the ships database, proceeds to learn all about her and begins to fall in love with her as she sleeps blissfully unaware of his presence.
Fate eventually gets in the way and Aurora awakens and joins Jim is the only people awake on the massive ship. Having come from a privileged background as a successful author, Aurora is really upset over spending the rest of her life on the ship as her plan was to spend a year on the colony world before returning to Earth and resuming her writing career 241 years after she left with the adventure she is undertaken being the basis for some of her new work.
The two eventually have feelings for one another, but Jim is harboring a dark secret that threatens to unravel the happy life they have been able to build for one another. As if that was not enough, the ship is experiencing random and increasing malfunctions which threaten not only their survival, but the long-term survival of the fellow crew and passengers and the long journey that they have ahead of them.
What follows is a time predictable but albeit entertaining mix of romance and action. There are some very good visuals in the film and while the story moves along at a very predictable pace, the two leads make the material work. The film does have numerous plot holes in it which I cannot go into without spoiling it but suffice it to say the premise of q couple stranded is not new.
Yes we have seen this all before but the cast and the interesting locale and visuals make the film add up to more than the sum of its parts. I only wish there’d been a little more time shoring up the plot holes and perhaps adding a little bit of mystery and intrigue to the plot as it truly would’ve made this more compelling.
Unable to wake any of the crew to assist him with the situation or access the bridge of the ship, Jim uses his engineering skills to study the operations of the ship as well as gain access to areas normally reserved for VIP passengers.
As time goes by Jim becomes more and more despondent because he cannot even contact anyone on earth as the computer informs him that it will take 36 years for reply to any of his messages to reach the ship and he grows weary of the thought of spending the rest of his life alone.
During one of his frequent visits to his former stasis chamber, Jim discovers an attractive passenger named Aurora (Jennifer Lawrence), and using the ships database, proceeds to learn all about her and begins to fall in love with her as she sleeps blissfully unaware of his presence.
Fate eventually gets in the way and Aurora awakens and joins Jim is the only people awake on the massive ship. Having come from a privileged background as a successful author, Aurora is really upset over spending the rest of her life on the ship as her plan was to spend a year on the colony world before returning to Earth and resuming her writing career 241 years after she left with the adventure she is undertaken being the basis for some of her new work.
The two eventually have feelings for one another, but Jim is harboring a dark secret that threatens to unravel the happy life they have been able to build for one another. As if that was not enough, the ship is experiencing random and increasing malfunctions which threaten not only their survival, but the long-term survival of the fellow crew and passengers and the long journey that they have ahead of them.
What follows is a time predictable but albeit entertaining mix of romance and action. There are some very good visuals in the film and while the story moves along at a very predictable pace, the two leads make the material work. The film does have numerous plot holes in it which I cannot go into without spoiling it but suffice it to say the premise of q couple stranded is not new.
Yes we have seen this all before but the cast and the interesting locale and visuals make the film add up to more than the sum of its parts. I only wish there’d been a little more time shoring up the plot holes and perhaps adding a little bit of mystery and intrigue to the plot as it truly would’ve made this more compelling.