Search
Search results
David McK (3425 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Jun 23, 2019 (Updated Jul 23, 2024)
Summmer 2008: at the time of writing this, now 11 years ago (edit: now 16), and the cinematic landscape was rather different - the MCU was only just starting off (with Iron Man), and superheroes in the cinema were not as commonplace as they are today ( to the best of my memory).
While Christopher No.an had effectively rebooted perhaps DCs most famous character in Batman Begins, that film had (deliberately, IMO) kept the focus pretty much on Bruce Wayne/Batman rather than on his mos famous foes, ending with a deliberate tease of the introduction of the Joker.
And what an introduction he gets in this.
As portrayed by Heath Ledger (whose untimely death no doubt helped stoke the interest for this movie: his last full screen role), this Joker is very different than Jack Nicholson's 1989 portrayal. It's a definite magnetic tour de force from the actor, sure, although (personally) I've never really viewed the character as a Joker so much as as a genius psychopath.
"I'm an agent of chaos" he says at one point. "I'm a dog chasing a car. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it". And that, to me, is what is missing from the character-as-written.
Alongside Ledger, Aaron Eckhart also puts in a brilliant turn as Harvey Dent, completely blowing Tommy Lee Jones portrayal of the same character (in Batman Forever) out of the water. It's a far more realistic interpretation of what drives Dent to become Two-face, with some frightenly realistic effects.
And, finally, it may be a small thing: but in this Batman gets and operates (briefly) out of Gotham city, making his world seem more 'real' as a result.
While Christopher No.an had effectively rebooted perhaps DCs most famous character in Batman Begins, that film had (deliberately, IMO) kept the focus pretty much on Bruce Wayne/Batman rather than on his mos famous foes, ending with a deliberate tease of the introduction of the Joker.
And what an introduction he gets in this.
As portrayed by Heath Ledger (whose untimely death no doubt helped stoke the interest for this movie: his last full screen role), this Joker is very different than Jack Nicholson's 1989 portrayal. It's a definite magnetic tour de force from the actor, sure, although (personally) I've never really viewed the character as a Joker so much as as a genius psychopath.
"I'm an agent of chaos" he says at one point. "I'm a dog chasing a car. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it". And that, to me, is what is missing from the character-as-written.
Alongside Ledger, Aaron Eckhart also puts in a brilliant turn as Harvey Dent, completely blowing Tommy Lee Jones portrayal of the same character (in Batman Forever) out of the water. It's a far more realistic interpretation of what drives Dent to become Two-face, with some frightenly realistic effects.
And, finally, it may be a small thing: but in this Batman gets and operates (briefly) out of Gotham city, making his world seem more 'real' as a result.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (2005) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Far, far away from it's potential...
Contains spoilers, click to show
After 22 years of waiting, since 1983′s "Return Of The Jedi", we were sat in the auditorium ready to witness the epic moment when Obi Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker would finally turn on one and other and Darth Vader's conception would be complete.
As the 'Clone War' came to a close, the Jedi had been all but wiped of the face of a galaxy far, far away and Chancellor Palpatine had ascended to become the emperor of the newly formed 'Galactic Empire', that moment had finally arrived. Was it worth the wait? Well, since the bar had be not so much lowered, but obliterated by the the first two prequels, measured with those in mind, then yes, absolutely! In fact, it does stand up well, and on the initial viewing, it was outstanding. A visual feast or choreography, visual style and epic art direction, everything you would expect from the man who had changed cinema forever, 28 years earlier.
The only issue is that even though the fans wanted nothing more that to see this duel, the rest of the prequel franchise was merely filler, and a series of plots designed to delay the inevitable battle and to give the audience anything but what they had expected. But after a ridiculous 22 year wait, there was almost no good ideas left that hadn't been explored in two decades of fan fiction, leaving all the bad ones to be included in Lucus' second, no rather third rate scripts! We had been told that he was waiting for the technology to make these films, but what was he waiting for exactly? The technology to animate the, perhaps? The visual effects in these films, though sparkling and perfect in its details, are hollow and do not match the standards of the original films, and begs the question as to why not? Four years since the release of "Revenge Of The Sith", James Cameron would finally release a film which he had being developing the technology for, for over 10 years, ("Avatar") and the result: Groundbreaking cinema, in both the 3D and Mo-cap tech, raising the bar, as "Star Wars" had done three decades earlier.
But this film had restored something which the franchise had all but destroyed with episodes one and two. This finally felt something like the original films and was a joy to watch, even though it still falls short of the mark. The acting is poor in all the prequels, which account to Lucas' directorial style, favoring green screen and CGI over acting. But John William's score is first rate, as it has been throughout the entire saga, but this was both classic and moving, a score truly in touch with the audiences love and feeling towards the films, sadly devoid in most other aspects of the production.
That's not to say that technically this was well produced, because on paper, in the computers, and certainly in sound editing suites, it was perfect, with levels of audio visual detail to die for and the scope was awesome. But in the end, it is a hollow shell of what it should have been. "Episode III" though, is the most fulfilling of the three, but all of them rely of the decades of loyalty given to them, because without it, these would probably be laughed out of the auditoriums.
But having said all that, I enjoy this film, as a part of the saga, and still look forward to seeing it, and some of the sequences in this film , though far from perfectly realized, are fun and enjoyable. This is leagues below "Star Wars" and the superior "Empire Strikes Back", but still worth a watch.
As the 'Clone War' came to a close, the Jedi had been all but wiped of the face of a galaxy far, far away and Chancellor Palpatine had ascended to become the emperor of the newly formed 'Galactic Empire', that moment had finally arrived. Was it worth the wait? Well, since the bar had be not so much lowered, but obliterated by the the first two prequels, measured with those in mind, then yes, absolutely! In fact, it does stand up well, and on the initial viewing, it was outstanding. A visual feast or choreography, visual style and epic art direction, everything you would expect from the man who had changed cinema forever, 28 years earlier.
The only issue is that even though the fans wanted nothing more that to see this duel, the rest of the prequel franchise was merely filler, and a series of plots designed to delay the inevitable battle and to give the audience anything but what they had expected. But after a ridiculous 22 year wait, there was almost no good ideas left that hadn't been explored in two decades of fan fiction, leaving all the bad ones to be included in Lucus' second, no rather third rate scripts! We had been told that he was waiting for the technology to make these films, but what was he waiting for exactly? The technology to animate the, perhaps? The visual effects in these films, though sparkling and perfect in its details, are hollow and do not match the standards of the original films, and begs the question as to why not? Four years since the release of "Revenge Of The Sith", James Cameron would finally release a film which he had being developing the technology for, for over 10 years, ("Avatar") and the result: Groundbreaking cinema, in both the 3D and Mo-cap tech, raising the bar, as "Star Wars" had done three decades earlier.
But this film had restored something which the franchise had all but destroyed with episodes one and two. This finally felt something like the original films and was a joy to watch, even though it still falls short of the mark. The acting is poor in all the prequels, which account to Lucas' directorial style, favoring green screen and CGI over acting. But John William's score is first rate, as it has been throughout the entire saga, but this was both classic and moving, a score truly in touch with the audiences love and feeling towards the films, sadly devoid in most other aspects of the production.
That's not to say that technically this was well produced, because on paper, in the computers, and certainly in sound editing suites, it was perfect, with levels of audio visual detail to die for and the scope was awesome. But in the end, it is a hollow shell of what it should have been. "Episode III" though, is the most fulfilling of the three, but all of them rely of the decades of loyalty given to them, because without it, these would probably be laughed out of the auditoriums.
But having said all that, I enjoy this film, as a part of the saga, and still look forward to seeing it, and some of the sequences in this film , though far from perfectly realized, are fun and enjoyable. This is leagues below "Star Wars" and the superior "Empire Strikes Back", but still worth a watch.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Disaster Artist (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
“Ha ha ha! What a film, Mark!”
I was first introduced to The Room during a college Film Studies lecture as a perfect example of how not to make a film. Everything about it was atrocious, but I also found it weirdly compelling. Since then, I’ve made a real effort to follow everything relating to Tommy Wiseau and this bizarre film of his. It’s become a cult classic in recent years, drawing a crowd of dedicated fans to the Prince Charles Cinema in Leicester Square for monthly screenings, and Q&A’s with cast members. When I found out that James Franco was creating a film adaptation of Greg Sestero’s novel The Disaster Artist: My Life Inside The Room, the Greatest Bad Movie Ever Made, I was so excited!
I was lucky enough to see the film during its opening weekend at the Prince Charles Cinema, which actually made my experience even better. Being around a crowd of The Room fans who knew the film like the back of their hand was hilarious, because they recited familiar quotes along with James Franco, and it was clear the entire audience was having a blast from start to finish. I honestly can’t remember the last time I laughed this much at a film. Everyone involved made a real effort to recreate the scenes that we know and love, whilst giving us a glimpse into what life on that film set was really like. It’s possible to forget that you’re watching The Disaster Artist and not The Room at times, because the performances are so spot on.
Once again, James Franco’s ability to take a real life person and bring them to life on a screen shone through. I always refer to his performance as Aron Ralston in 127 Hours as one of his best, but his portrayal of Tommy Wiseau certainly comes a close second. He nails the mannerisms, the accent, and that weird laugh that Wiseau has become well known for. You can tell he has dedicated a lot of time and effort to the project, and it’s paid off. Praise must also be given to the rest of the cast for perfectly emulating the characters. Josh Hutcherson as Denny was amazing; even when he was just sitting there that ridiculous wig was enough to make the audience cry with laughter, and Seth Rogen’s script supervisor character delivers these amazing one liners that show his frustration at Tommy’s ridiculous ideas.
Whilst clearly hilarious, this film is not without its fair share of tragedy, mainly around Dave Franco’s character Greg Sestero. His friendship with Tommy required him to make huge, unimaginable sacrifices both professionally and personally, ultimately causing a rift between the two. Greg is a classic example of a man chasing the allure of fame, and failing miserably. You can’t help but sympathise with him as he tries his best to keep those around him happy whilst trying to attain life changing career goals. The film also shows a darker side to Tommy Wiseau, as he treats the cast and crew around him very badly. He’s so wrapped up in bringing The Room, his “real Hollywood movie”, to life that he neglects the needs of those around him. There are some highly charged emotional moments in this film, which are perfectly balanced with the comedic moments. Without these serious scenes, the film just wouldn’t have been the same.
The Disaster Artist is a must-watch for fans of The Room, and those who want to learn more about the utter chaos that happened on set. It’s funny, intense, emotional and a one of a kind experience from start to finish. Make sure you sit tight until after the credits too, as there’s an extra scene that you don’t want to miss!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2017/12/04/ha-ha-ha-what-a-film-mark-a-review-of-the-disaster-artist/
I was lucky enough to see the film during its opening weekend at the Prince Charles Cinema, which actually made my experience even better. Being around a crowd of The Room fans who knew the film like the back of their hand was hilarious, because they recited familiar quotes along with James Franco, and it was clear the entire audience was having a blast from start to finish. I honestly can’t remember the last time I laughed this much at a film. Everyone involved made a real effort to recreate the scenes that we know and love, whilst giving us a glimpse into what life on that film set was really like. It’s possible to forget that you’re watching The Disaster Artist and not The Room at times, because the performances are so spot on.
Once again, James Franco’s ability to take a real life person and bring them to life on a screen shone through. I always refer to his performance as Aron Ralston in 127 Hours as one of his best, but his portrayal of Tommy Wiseau certainly comes a close second. He nails the mannerisms, the accent, and that weird laugh that Wiseau has become well known for. You can tell he has dedicated a lot of time and effort to the project, and it’s paid off. Praise must also be given to the rest of the cast for perfectly emulating the characters. Josh Hutcherson as Denny was amazing; even when he was just sitting there that ridiculous wig was enough to make the audience cry with laughter, and Seth Rogen’s script supervisor character delivers these amazing one liners that show his frustration at Tommy’s ridiculous ideas.
Whilst clearly hilarious, this film is not without its fair share of tragedy, mainly around Dave Franco’s character Greg Sestero. His friendship with Tommy required him to make huge, unimaginable sacrifices both professionally and personally, ultimately causing a rift between the two. Greg is a classic example of a man chasing the allure of fame, and failing miserably. You can’t help but sympathise with him as he tries his best to keep those around him happy whilst trying to attain life changing career goals. The film also shows a darker side to Tommy Wiseau, as he treats the cast and crew around him very badly. He’s so wrapped up in bringing The Room, his “real Hollywood movie”, to life that he neglects the needs of those around him. There are some highly charged emotional moments in this film, which are perfectly balanced with the comedic moments. Without these serious scenes, the film just wouldn’t have been the same.
The Disaster Artist is a must-watch for fans of The Room, and those who want to learn more about the utter chaos that happened on set. It’s funny, intense, emotional and a one of a kind experience from start to finish. Make sure you sit tight until after the credits too, as there’s an extra scene that you don’t want to miss!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2017/12/04/ha-ha-ha-what-a-film-mark-a-review-of-the-disaster-artist/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Life Itself (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
This film is hard to watch, not because it's not good but because there's a lot of chaos to the story at the beginning. We're then treated to a portion that's entirely in Spanish which kicks off an emotional rollercoaster that brings us into the end.
One of the things we see near the beginning of this story almost instantly made me dislike the film, the story line exposes the fact that what we're hearing might not be what actually happened. It plays on the point that one person's view of something isn't the same as another person's. This will sound silly when I say it but I was annoyed that it had pointed out that the film might be lying to me. The reason it's particularly silly is that this same scenario happens a lot in all sorts of films. I know films lie to me but I don't want to know it.
I'm sitting here tapping my pen as I try and write this review, the film left me perplexed in so many ways. I went into the film prepared for what I thought I was going to see and yet it opened with Samuel L. Jackson. You read that right, I haven't lost the plot, Samuel L. "MFing" Jackson. Admittedly he was there doing what I love best about him but he only added to my confusion. The sort of film this is, opening with him, even with the context it makes no sense.
We're treated to lots of great actors in this one but I have to say that I was most happy to see Annette Bening pop up. (The American President used to be one of my go to films. I've also just noticed Captain Marvel in her filmography... *wheezes into a paper bag*) Her part may have been fleeting but in the chaotic part of the film she was the only grounded point. From my high to my low point... Oscar Isaac. It actually upsets me to put him in this position as I've enjoyed him in most of his recent films but I wasn't feeling the love for his character Will. In nearly every scene I could see a style I associate with Jake Johnson and honestly I'd much rather have seen him trying that role.
If you can make it to the mid-way point of the movie then you do get a much more palatable film, and a predictable one. There is a point where you absolutely know what is going to happen at the end of the film and from thereon in you look for the connections before they happen. Despite that point it's a satisfactory ending to a rather mixed bag.
We were also treated to a Q&A after the film featuring Dan Fogelman (writer and director) and actress Olivia Cooke. Sadly it was a bit of an anti-climax, I often find that these featurettes can offer some fascinating insights into the goings on but this seemed more like an after thought for this preview.
What you should do
As if to add insult to injury you don't need to leave the house to see this film as it is made by Sky (although I'm also seeing Amazon Studios coming up in places, but I'm sure the film actually said Sky) and premieres on Sky Cinema at the same time as being released at cinemas. If you can see it on there then go for it, I'm not sure it's cinema worthy.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A life picking olives in the Spanish countryside?
One of the things we see near the beginning of this story almost instantly made me dislike the film, the story line exposes the fact that what we're hearing might not be what actually happened. It plays on the point that one person's view of something isn't the same as another person's. This will sound silly when I say it but I was annoyed that it had pointed out that the film might be lying to me. The reason it's particularly silly is that this same scenario happens a lot in all sorts of films. I know films lie to me but I don't want to know it.
I'm sitting here tapping my pen as I try and write this review, the film left me perplexed in so many ways. I went into the film prepared for what I thought I was going to see and yet it opened with Samuel L. Jackson. You read that right, I haven't lost the plot, Samuel L. "MFing" Jackson. Admittedly he was there doing what I love best about him but he only added to my confusion. The sort of film this is, opening with him, even with the context it makes no sense.
We're treated to lots of great actors in this one but I have to say that I was most happy to see Annette Bening pop up. (The American President used to be one of my go to films. I've also just noticed Captain Marvel in her filmography... *wheezes into a paper bag*) Her part may have been fleeting but in the chaotic part of the film she was the only grounded point. From my high to my low point... Oscar Isaac. It actually upsets me to put him in this position as I've enjoyed him in most of his recent films but I wasn't feeling the love for his character Will. In nearly every scene I could see a style I associate with Jake Johnson and honestly I'd much rather have seen him trying that role.
If you can make it to the mid-way point of the movie then you do get a much more palatable film, and a predictable one. There is a point where you absolutely know what is going to happen at the end of the film and from thereon in you look for the connections before they happen. Despite that point it's a satisfactory ending to a rather mixed bag.
We were also treated to a Q&A after the film featuring Dan Fogelman (writer and director) and actress Olivia Cooke. Sadly it was a bit of an anti-climax, I often find that these featurettes can offer some fascinating insights into the goings on but this seemed more like an after thought for this preview.
What you should do
As if to add insult to injury you don't need to leave the house to see this film as it is made by Sky (although I'm also seeing Amazon Studios coming up in places, but I'm sure the film actually said Sky) and premieres on Sky Cinema at the same time as being released at cinemas. If you can see it on there then go for it, I'm not sure it's cinema worthy.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A life picking olives in the Spanish countryside?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Escape Room (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
TL;DR - I'm never doing an escape room ever again, and potentially never going anywhere that begins with a mysterious invitation.
The film opens, somewhat strangely, with some of the last scenes of the movie. I'm not sure whether this helped the film along or not. We already knew what to expect before going in so starting with the intrigue of the invitations probably would have worked just as well, it did at least ease you in to what you'd be getting from the rest of the film.
I was a little disappointed that we didn't get an intro to all of the characters. Admittedly six intro pieces would have made the beginning of the story drag but it felt a little odd to have the other three thrown in with no context. On the plus side you are able to infer some things about their back story as we go through the film, but I don't quite see the logic behind who they included and excluded.
Drama, mystery, sci-fi, thriller... that's how IMDb classified Escape Room, and this is why I don't know why we bother pigeon holing films. It's definitely a thriller and can loosely fit into the horror genre (I only say loosely because of it's lack of gore) but to claim any of the others is a stretch.
In what was probably a rather average film I was glad to see some pieces that impressed me. Amanda (Deborah Ann Woll) has a flashback during one of their escapes and the transition was seamless. Woll's performance overall was probably the best, she goes from vulnerable to woman of action and in each scene she creates something that I found incredibly believable.
Tyler Labine is one of my favourite "hidden" gems of the movie world so I was excited to see he was part of this. My excitement was short lived though as his character wasn't given much opportunity to shine as his story is largely overlooked until the very last minute.
One of the issues I have at the cinema is that I suffer from mild motion sickness, generally I'm okay but on occasion the weirdest things can set it off. This film gave me a near heart attack when it entered the pool room, you can see it during the trailer, the room is basically upside down but that combined with the camera shots meant I had to keep looking at my feet for fear of either passing out or throwing up on my fellow cinema goers.
The idea behind the film had a lot of potential and up to a certain point I was enjoying what was happening... but that ending. My brain suddenly stopped and went "huh, Belko Experiment." I'm not generally a watcher of horror type films but from the comments I've seen online Escape Room is similar to a lot of things already out there. What I know is that it's predictable. Probably more so because of the way the film starts, the premise of an escape room, and the trailer. It does have some things up its sleeve though.
For someone who is easily scared out of their skin I didn't have a problem watching this (apart from that pool room scene), a lot of the really jumpy bits I'd already seen before going into the film. Until the memory of this film is washed away by several dozen other films I will not be setting foot in an escape room, and they should probably look at suing the film for lose of revenue.
What you should do
It's an entertaining film and if thrillers/horrors are your sort of thing then you should give it a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Needless to say there is basically nothing I want from this movie apart from the little piece of sanity and rational thinking it stole from me.
The film opens, somewhat strangely, with some of the last scenes of the movie. I'm not sure whether this helped the film along or not. We already knew what to expect before going in so starting with the intrigue of the invitations probably would have worked just as well, it did at least ease you in to what you'd be getting from the rest of the film.
I was a little disappointed that we didn't get an intro to all of the characters. Admittedly six intro pieces would have made the beginning of the story drag but it felt a little odd to have the other three thrown in with no context. On the plus side you are able to infer some things about their back story as we go through the film, but I don't quite see the logic behind who they included and excluded.
Drama, mystery, sci-fi, thriller... that's how IMDb classified Escape Room, and this is why I don't know why we bother pigeon holing films. It's definitely a thriller and can loosely fit into the horror genre (I only say loosely because of it's lack of gore) but to claim any of the others is a stretch.
In what was probably a rather average film I was glad to see some pieces that impressed me. Amanda (Deborah Ann Woll) has a flashback during one of their escapes and the transition was seamless. Woll's performance overall was probably the best, she goes from vulnerable to woman of action and in each scene she creates something that I found incredibly believable.
Tyler Labine is one of my favourite "hidden" gems of the movie world so I was excited to see he was part of this. My excitement was short lived though as his character wasn't given much opportunity to shine as his story is largely overlooked until the very last minute.
One of the issues I have at the cinema is that I suffer from mild motion sickness, generally I'm okay but on occasion the weirdest things can set it off. This film gave me a near heart attack when it entered the pool room, you can see it during the trailer, the room is basically upside down but that combined with the camera shots meant I had to keep looking at my feet for fear of either passing out or throwing up on my fellow cinema goers.
The idea behind the film had a lot of potential and up to a certain point I was enjoying what was happening... but that ending. My brain suddenly stopped and went "huh, Belko Experiment." I'm not generally a watcher of horror type films but from the comments I've seen online Escape Room is similar to a lot of things already out there. What I know is that it's predictable. Probably more so because of the way the film starts, the premise of an escape room, and the trailer. It does have some things up its sleeve though.
For someone who is easily scared out of their skin I didn't have a problem watching this (apart from that pool room scene), a lot of the really jumpy bits I'd already seen before going into the film. Until the memory of this film is washed away by several dozen other films I will not be setting foot in an escape room, and they should probably look at suing the film for lose of revenue.
What you should do
It's an entertaining film and if thrillers/horrors are your sort of thing then you should give it a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Needless to say there is basically nothing I want from this movie apart from the little piece of sanity and rational thinking it stole from me.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Frozen II (2019) in Movies
Nov 30, 2019
Anna's character development (1 more)
Reindeer
Songs (1 more)
Olaf
Having arrived at the cinema on Saturday afternoon I was very glad I changed my plans to see this after work on Friday. The foyer was packed with children and it looked like a costume shop had a Disney special running. My 3D screening the day before had been a much more pleasant affair.
Arendelle is thriving and its people have never been happier, but Queen Elsa is feeling an emptiness that no amount of family and friends can seem to solve. When she starts to hear a song on the wind she knows she must follow its calling.
The song leads them to a place that Elsa and Anna have only ever heard about from their parents, a forest shrouded in impenetrable mist, a place that holds more questions as well as answers.
Firstly, 3D... big thumbs down. I certainly wouldn't be paying extra to see it, it's hardly ever worth it but it was the easiest way to have a screening that wasn't rammed with munchkins in cheap shiny costumes singing Let It Go.
There's always a certain amount of enjoyment to be had from a Disney film, I would say that automatically most are looking at 2.5/5 rating regardless... but coming out of Frozen II I was concerned that this one had dropped the ball.
The characters, our favourite things next to the songs... well mine at least, were hollow representations of what we saw in the first film. The peripheral characters were great so that thankfully helped everything move along well. Sadly Olaf thoroughly annoyed me with his existential crisis but while there were some heartfelt moments they didn't make up for that.
Out of the other main characters it was only Anna that had made any improvement from the original. (Sven of course is comedy gold, that's never in question.) She was stronger and more impressive, she seemed to have a lot more "role model" this time around. It also felt like there was a lot more Kristen Bell in her this time like she was allowed to have more input into Anna, she seems a lot funnier.
It is amazing just how much of an impact Disney songs can have, going in and out of the cinema at the moment you'll generally hear someone singing Let It Go or making some kind of pun, and here's where we come to my second major problem... the songs of Frozen II. There's not a single catchy tune. Much like Mary Poppins Returns I came out with original songs in my head and not the new ones. Possibly the worst thing of all is that they seemingly splice a boyband video for Kristoff right into the middle of the film. The only thing to take away from it is that reindeer are very talented.
Next, don't worry, this is the last one... probably. While the animation is the usual Disney quality there are a couple of moments (one of which is in the trailer) that when I saw them on the big screen looked terrible. Elsa fills the sky with ice crystals and they hand there and visually it's really not very good. For spoilery reasons I understand why they did it but it wasn't in keeping with the rest of the style enough to make it fit in.
The story itself was quite a nice one, it gives background context and opens up the Frozen universe for what I imagine will be a third film somewhere along the line. It covers the usual collection of things, betrayal, love, redemption, plenty of the usual Disney fodder.
Ultimately there's still a lot of good stuff in this and of course it's going to be entertaining. I don't think you could find a Disney film that wasn't, but for me the fact that Olaf and the songs were poor tarnished this one for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/frozen-ii-movie-review.html
Arendelle is thriving and its people have never been happier, but Queen Elsa is feeling an emptiness that no amount of family and friends can seem to solve. When she starts to hear a song on the wind she knows she must follow its calling.
The song leads them to a place that Elsa and Anna have only ever heard about from their parents, a forest shrouded in impenetrable mist, a place that holds more questions as well as answers.
Firstly, 3D... big thumbs down. I certainly wouldn't be paying extra to see it, it's hardly ever worth it but it was the easiest way to have a screening that wasn't rammed with munchkins in cheap shiny costumes singing Let It Go.
There's always a certain amount of enjoyment to be had from a Disney film, I would say that automatically most are looking at 2.5/5 rating regardless... but coming out of Frozen II I was concerned that this one had dropped the ball.
The characters, our favourite things next to the songs... well mine at least, were hollow representations of what we saw in the first film. The peripheral characters were great so that thankfully helped everything move along well. Sadly Olaf thoroughly annoyed me with his existential crisis but while there were some heartfelt moments they didn't make up for that.
Out of the other main characters it was only Anna that had made any improvement from the original. (Sven of course is comedy gold, that's never in question.) She was stronger and more impressive, she seemed to have a lot more "role model" this time around. It also felt like there was a lot more Kristen Bell in her this time like she was allowed to have more input into Anna, she seems a lot funnier.
It is amazing just how much of an impact Disney songs can have, going in and out of the cinema at the moment you'll generally hear someone singing Let It Go or making some kind of pun, and here's where we come to my second major problem... the songs of Frozen II. There's not a single catchy tune. Much like Mary Poppins Returns I came out with original songs in my head and not the new ones. Possibly the worst thing of all is that they seemingly splice a boyband video for Kristoff right into the middle of the film. The only thing to take away from it is that reindeer are very talented.
Next, don't worry, this is the last one... probably. While the animation is the usual Disney quality there are a couple of moments (one of which is in the trailer) that when I saw them on the big screen looked terrible. Elsa fills the sky with ice crystals and they hand there and visually it's really not very good. For spoilery reasons I understand why they did it but it wasn't in keeping with the rest of the style enough to make it fit in.
The story itself was quite a nice one, it gives background context and opens up the Frozen universe for what I imagine will be a third film somewhere along the line. It covers the usual collection of things, betrayal, love, redemption, plenty of the usual Disney fodder.
Ultimately there's still a lot of good stuff in this and of course it's going to be entertaining. I don't think you could find a Disney film that wasn't, but for me the fact that Olaf and the songs were poor tarnished this one for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/frozen-ii-movie-review.html
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Beasts of No Nation (2015) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 9, 2020)
As I may have mentioned, a lot of my film viewing over the last wee while has been part of a project that hopes to be called 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential films of the new millennium – which utilises the Decinemal system you will see at the bottom of each of my reviews. It aims to judge each film objectively with a score out of 10 over 10 categories, to give an overall rating out of 100.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated 3 Idiots (2009) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
So, I am writing a coffee table book that selects the 200 top films of 2000 – 2019. Called, predictably, 21st Century Cinema: 200 Unmissable films. It uses a system of rating I devised called The Decinemal, which takes the ten categories by which a film can be rated (Direction, Script, Design, Lead Acting, Support Acting, Music, Photography, Critical Acclaim, Watchability and X-Factor) and scores them out of 10, to give an overall score out of 100. Whilst not foolproof, it does give a remarkable working basis for comparing movies of different genres, and the ratings often bear a striking relation to the democratic system used by IMDb – a film scoring 7.2 on that website might be a 75 decinemal, for example, and that feels like that validates its use.
It has been a very fun, if time consuming, project. The difficulty is keeping up with new releases every year, and trying to catch some of the more obscure foreign language films out there that get high scores on IMDb. One such film was 3 Idiots, to date the highest rated Bollywood film on that website, with a score of 8.5; which is high! Very high! So I have to watch it and find out for myself.
Now, Bollywood is not me for, barring the odd amusement of how bizarre they can be. I find the musical interludes often grating and incongruous, and the melodramatic acting styles something that the cinema of most other countries outgrew decades ago. So it is hard for me to be objective about it. On the whole they just don’t compete on any level with American, European or, well, any other country’s output. In short, I would never normally watch one at all.
Surprisingly, I found 3 Idiots, although clownish and OTT, quite entertaining from the start. I even found one or two of the obligatory musical numbers very catchy and a lot of fun! Also, lead actor Aamir Khan, one of India’s biggest stars, was very charming and watchable. Of course, it is colourful, loud and has a childish sensibility, but some moments made me genuinely laugh. The main problem actually came from it being padded out to almost 2 and 1/2 hours, which was far too long for comfort. If it had been more economical I may have even been able to say it was worth watching.
Sadly, it is the moments of cultural difference and pure silliness that dragged it down. Despite its positive points, ultimately it is a mess, and to compare it on the standard I judge all films I see I have to be fair and not patronise it. Certainly in terms of the Bollywood fare I have seen bits of over the years, I can see why it is so well thought of. I can also see how films like this gain such a high rating, because it is the native audience it was made for that cast the votes. Which is fair enough, but does give it an unreasonably high score.
I think if more people watched it and rated it, it would balance out at a 6.5, and it probably deserves that for sheer entertainment value. I have certainly seen many worse films! Applying The Decinemal objectively, however, it comes out like this: Direction 4, Script 5, Design 6, Lead Acting 6, Support acting 4, Music 5, Photography 6, Critical Acclaim 7, Wachability 5, x-Factor 6. Added up that gives it a Decinemal of 54 – a far cry from the 74 it would have needed to make my top 200. And I stand by that score, as the level of likelihood of everyone’s enjoyment of it.
To an extent it discourages me from watching anything from this part of the world again, but I can’t say I didn’t appreciate why it was such a big hit. Interesting.
It has been a very fun, if time consuming, project. The difficulty is keeping up with new releases every year, and trying to catch some of the more obscure foreign language films out there that get high scores on IMDb. One such film was 3 Idiots, to date the highest rated Bollywood film on that website, with a score of 8.5; which is high! Very high! So I have to watch it and find out for myself.
Now, Bollywood is not me for, barring the odd amusement of how bizarre they can be. I find the musical interludes often grating and incongruous, and the melodramatic acting styles something that the cinema of most other countries outgrew decades ago. So it is hard for me to be objective about it. On the whole they just don’t compete on any level with American, European or, well, any other country’s output. In short, I would never normally watch one at all.
Surprisingly, I found 3 Idiots, although clownish and OTT, quite entertaining from the start. I even found one or two of the obligatory musical numbers very catchy and a lot of fun! Also, lead actor Aamir Khan, one of India’s biggest stars, was very charming and watchable. Of course, it is colourful, loud and has a childish sensibility, but some moments made me genuinely laugh. The main problem actually came from it being padded out to almost 2 and 1/2 hours, which was far too long for comfort. If it had been more economical I may have even been able to say it was worth watching.
Sadly, it is the moments of cultural difference and pure silliness that dragged it down. Despite its positive points, ultimately it is a mess, and to compare it on the standard I judge all films I see I have to be fair and not patronise it. Certainly in terms of the Bollywood fare I have seen bits of over the years, I can see why it is so well thought of. I can also see how films like this gain such a high rating, because it is the native audience it was made for that cast the votes. Which is fair enough, but does give it an unreasonably high score.
I think if more people watched it and rated it, it would balance out at a 6.5, and it probably deserves that for sheer entertainment value. I have certainly seen many worse films! Applying The Decinemal objectively, however, it comes out like this: Direction 4, Script 5, Design 6, Lead Acting 6, Support acting 4, Music 5, Photography 6, Critical Acclaim 7, Wachability 5, x-Factor 6. Added up that gives it a Decinemal of 54 – a far cry from the 74 it would have needed to make my top 200. And I stand by that score, as the level of likelihood of everyone’s enjoyment of it.
To an extent it discourages me from watching anything from this part of the world again, but I can’t say I didn’t appreciate why it was such a big hit. Interesting.
iFind Khuyến mãi Giảm giá Deal
Shopping and Food & Drink
App
iFind - Tìm nhanh Ưu Đãi iFind là ứng dụng di động tiện ích và thông minh giúp...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Free Guy (2021) in Movies
Aug 12, 2021
Reynolds and particularly Comer are great (1 more)
Lots of laughs, most of them on target
Ready Player Truman
I managed to see “Free Guy” last night at a Cineworld “Secret Cinema” event.
Positives:
- It’s a riot of noise and colour. Like a fevered teenager’s dream. And – in the main – very funny. Ryan Reynolds is, as always, anarchically brilliant, playing the role of both Guy and “The Dude” – the one with the slightly unformed catchphrase. Both Reynolds and actor/director Taika Waititi, who plays the flamboyant mega-games-mogul Antoine – are well known for their improv lines. And this is on show here in spades (for better and in some cases for worse). The Bluray extras on this one are sure to be a smorgasbord of different variants!
- Jodie Comer. Wow! The “Killing Eve” star had a cameo as Rey’s mother in “Star Wars – The Rise of Skywalker” and starred in 2017’s Morrissey biopic “England is Mine”. But she’s been TV’s hidden gem in the main. This will surely be a break-out movie for her since she is in a class of her own here. Her portrayal of the flashback teenage version of herself is brilliantly nuanced and believable. I know she’s a serious actress, but the end of the movie made me think that there’s a strong niche, alongside the likes of Rachel McAdams and Emilia Clarke, in delivering a top-class romcom in the future.
- NO SPOILERS! But there is a surprise cameo towards the end of the movie that made the whole cinema erupt with laughter.
- The score by Christophe Beck is great, and song selections (especially the wonderful “Make Your Own Kind of Music”) are well-chosen and snort-worthy with their inclusion. I was listening to an interview with Beck on the UK's Scala Radio and he used to be a protégé of the great Mike Post: and there’s a nice tribute to Post with the inclusion of his “Greatest American Hero” theme to accompany “Dude” at one point.
Negatives:
- Waititi as Antoine is supposed to be over-the-top, but he misses 11, 12 and 13 and cranks it right up to 14 with his performance. Some of his (presumably) improv lines cross a mark. Dude, CANCER JUST ISN’T FUNNY. Nobody laughed. I can’t understand why this line was left in the cut when presumably they had a number of other variants. Bad judgement. (This is about the only reason I’m not giving this movie 10*s).
- Per “Summary Thoughts” below – it’s not as original as it likes to think it is.
Summary Thoughts on “Free Guy”: So, this is a movie that a lot of folks I know have been waiting for. And it’s a blast that I enjoyed immensely. There is little original under the movie sun, and this is no exception. It strays significantly into Spielberg’s “Ready Player One“, especially towards the end of the movie. But I personally found the closest resonance was with Peter Weir’s peerless “The Truman Show”. I even wondered if Reynolds was acknowledging that at one point, with a Carrey-esque gurn on one of his “Good Morning goldfish” segments?
The great thing is that you can ONLY see this on the big screen (which I hope stays that way for a good number of months). So I recommend you do just that since it’s a fine big screen summer blockbuster to enjoy. But when you go, don’t have a good visit – have a GREAT visit!
And by the way, there is NO 'monkey' (a post-credits scene in One Mann's Movies speak), so you don’t need to “do a Marvel” and sit through the end credits (unless, like me, you want to listen to more of Christophe Beck’s score again).
For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- It’s a riot of noise and colour. Like a fevered teenager’s dream. And – in the main – very funny. Ryan Reynolds is, as always, anarchically brilliant, playing the role of both Guy and “The Dude” – the one with the slightly unformed catchphrase. Both Reynolds and actor/director Taika Waititi, who plays the flamboyant mega-games-mogul Antoine – are well known for their improv lines. And this is on show here in spades (for better and in some cases for worse). The Bluray extras on this one are sure to be a smorgasbord of different variants!
- Jodie Comer. Wow! The “Killing Eve” star had a cameo as Rey’s mother in “Star Wars – The Rise of Skywalker” and starred in 2017’s Morrissey biopic “England is Mine”. But she’s been TV’s hidden gem in the main. This will surely be a break-out movie for her since she is in a class of her own here. Her portrayal of the flashback teenage version of herself is brilliantly nuanced and believable. I know she’s a serious actress, but the end of the movie made me think that there’s a strong niche, alongside the likes of Rachel McAdams and Emilia Clarke, in delivering a top-class romcom in the future.
- NO SPOILERS! But there is a surprise cameo towards the end of the movie that made the whole cinema erupt with laughter.
- The score by Christophe Beck is great, and song selections (especially the wonderful “Make Your Own Kind of Music”) are well-chosen and snort-worthy with their inclusion. I was listening to an interview with Beck on the UK's Scala Radio and he used to be a protégé of the great Mike Post: and there’s a nice tribute to Post with the inclusion of his “Greatest American Hero” theme to accompany “Dude” at one point.
Negatives:
- Waititi as Antoine is supposed to be over-the-top, but he misses 11, 12 and 13 and cranks it right up to 14 with his performance. Some of his (presumably) improv lines cross a mark. Dude, CANCER JUST ISN’T FUNNY. Nobody laughed. I can’t understand why this line was left in the cut when presumably they had a number of other variants. Bad judgement. (This is about the only reason I’m not giving this movie 10*s).
- Per “Summary Thoughts” below – it’s not as original as it likes to think it is.
Summary Thoughts on “Free Guy”: So, this is a movie that a lot of folks I know have been waiting for. And it’s a blast that I enjoyed immensely. There is little original under the movie sun, and this is no exception. It strays significantly into Spielberg’s “Ready Player One“, especially towards the end of the movie. But I personally found the closest resonance was with Peter Weir’s peerless “The Truman Show”. I even wondered if Reynolds was acknowledging that at one point, with a Carrey-esque gurn on one of his “Good Morning goldfish” segments?
The great thing is that you can ONLY see this on the big screen (which I hope stays that way for a good number of months). So I recommend you do just that since it’s a fine big screen summer blockbuster to enjoy. But when you go, don’t have a good visit – have a GREAT visit!
And by the way, there is NO 'monkey' (a post-credits scene in One Mann's Movies speak), so you don’t need to “do a Marvel” and sit through the end credits (unless, like me, you want to listen to more of Christophe Beck’s score again).
For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
