Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
He captured a feeling. Sky with no ceiling.
A memorable event
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Oct 6, 2021
Florence Pugh (2 more)
The free-fall sequence at the end.
Taskmaster before the mask comes off.
It's way too long. (3 more)
The Taskmaster changes are weak.
It's as if the characters are fighting over who gets to be the comedic relief.
Familiar storyline.
Espionage Exhaustion
Black Widow is a film explaining what Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) was up to in-between Captain America: Civil War and Avengers: Infinity War. The film was originally set to be released in May of 2020, but was pushed back and had three different release dates thanks to COVID-19. Unfortunately, most completed films that sit on the shelf and are in limbo for over a year rarely live up to the anticipation. Black Widow is worthwhile for a few key action sequences and notable characters that steal the spotlight, but is otherwise a mostly forgettable superhero film.
Marketed as a superhero film, Black Widow is also a spy thriller. Johansson has stated that films such as Logan, Harrison Ford’s The Fugitive, and Terminator 2: Judgment Day were influences. After Civil War, Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) is on the hunt for Natasha Romanoff. Women like Natasha who have had similar training in a torturous training facility known as The Red Room are victims to brainwashing by a man named Dreykov (Ray Winstone), but a serum ends up in Natasha’s hands that can break Dreykov’s brainwashing. Natasha begins searching for The Red Room and Dreykov, which also has her crossing paths with other spies that posed as her family members; her “sister” Yelena Belova (Florence Pugh), her “father” Alexai Shostakov (David Harbour), and her “mother” Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz).
The biggest selling point for Black Widow is that it’s a mostly female cast in front of and behind the camera. The film is directed by Cate Shortland and Black Widow is her first big budget feature. It’s also co-written by female screenwriter Jac Schaeffer (uncredited co-screenwriter of Captain Marvel) and Ned Benson (director of The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby).
Taskmaster is cool in the film until you realize the character has been altered from his comic book origins. This isn’t uncommon in the MCU or even other live-action superhero adaptations, but what the character has become in the film will be received with mixed results. In the comics, Taskmaster’s real identity is Anthony Masters and he’s a mercenary not unlike Deadpool (the two have fought together and against each other). Copying fighting styles and weapon techniques is similar to the film, but it’s all thanks to his incredible memory and photographic reflexes.
The character is altered to fit the story in the Black Widow film. It’s not necessarily a bad thing as it gives a bigger purpose for the character since it suddenly becomes a major part of Natasha’s storyline, but how the character evolves over the course of the film seems to almost relieve Natasha of her past sins rather than continue to serve as a catalyst. Taskmaster is generally involved in some of the best hand-to-hand combat sequences, but seems to be left hanging by the end of the film. We could see the character again, but whether or not the desire is there to see Taskmaster return is debatable.
The free-fall sequence that has been teased in the trailers is Black Widow’s most unique source of action. There’s exploding elements and falling debris, Natasha trying to save someone’s life, and Taskmaster thrown in attempting to mess up whatever she has planned; plus a bunch of goons bringing up the rear that will obviously be taken out in peak fashion. The sequence is like a duel to the death taking place on the edge of a volcano that’s about to erupt. It’s on the verge of being overkill, but is just awesome enough to trigger all of the adrenaline in your body.
Kevin Feige apparently wanted an equal amount of screen time for both Natasha and Yelena. With the after-credits sequence, Natasha being very dead after the events of Infinity War, and the reports that Yelena may be the new Black Widow, she’s essentially the star of the film and for good reason. The character begins as an individual with a chip on her shoulder from someone from her past, but Florence Pugh is able to add humor and empathy with her performance. Yelena has the best one-liners in the film (“That would be a cool way to die,”) and is essentially the best source of comedic relief (i.e. her hysterectomy rant), as well. She is the one character in the film you’d want to see more of after Black Widow ends.
The storyline of Black Widow doesn’t feel like anything you haven’t experienced cinematically before, especially within the confines of the MCU. An evil man is responsible for pulling the strings of a bunch of women that would kick his ass otherwise. Unfortunately, Ray Winstone doesn’t feel all that intimidating as Dreykov since he doesn’t do much besides talk in Black Widow. The point is made in the film that is all there’s really needed of the character, but Dreykov’s biggest weapon is his mouth. However, his verbal skills don’t seem advantageous enough to make him such a threat let alone keep him alive for over 20 years.
It also feels like every MCU film has its on-screen characters competing over who can get the most laughs; this is something that only got worse after Thor: Ragnarok proved to be a success. Marvel films are already so formulaic with most villains being introduced and killed within the confines of a single film. Natasha’s spy family all feel like minor extensions of herself. Rachel Weisz, despite not aging a day in nearly 30 years, is forgettable as Melina. David Harbour is essentially his character from Stranger things cosplaying as Mr. Incredible with a Russian accent. Even Florence Pugh’s Yelena Belova character is basically a blonde younger version of Natasha even though they’re not related by blood.
Black Widow clocks in at over two hours and it feels like a film that could have been edited down. Witnessing the events of a dysfunctional spy family who then spend good chunks of the film reminiscing about those moments the audience has already seen is redundant storytelling that feels like nothing more than filler.
Black Widow is worth seeing for Florence Pugh, the free-fall action sequence, and anything involving Taskmaster before it’s revealed who is under the mask. Everything else about Black Widow feels like it was done better by the films it was supposedly influenced by and mostly feels like a diluted imitation of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. It’s fantastic that women are getting more opportunities in big summer blockbusters like this one, but it’s also disheartening since their filmmaking skills are shackled to formulaic superfluity that obviously stands in the way of creating extraordinary cinema.
Marketed as a superhero film, Black Widow is also a spy thriller. Johansson has stated that films such as Logan, Harrison Ford’s The Fugitive, and Terminator 2: Judgment Day were influences. After Civil War, Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) is on the hunt for Natasha Romanoff. Women like Natasha who have had similar training in a torturous training facility known as The Red Room are victims to brainwashing by a man named Dreykov (Ray Winstone), but a serum ends up in Natasha’s hands that can break Dreykov’s brainwashing. Natasha begins searching for The Red Room and Dreykov, which also has her crossing paths with other spies that posed as her family members; her “sister” Yelena Belova (Florence Pugh), her “father” Alexai Shostakov (David Harbour), and her “mother” Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz).
The biggest selling point for Black Widow is that it’s a mostly female cast in front of and behind the camera. The film is directed by Cate Shortland and Black Widow is her first big budget feature. It’s also co-written by female screenwriter Jac Schaeffer (uncredited co-screenwriter of Captain Marvel) and Ned Benson (director of The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby).
Taskmaster is cool in the film until you realize the character has been altered from his comic book origins. This isn’t uncommon in the MCU or even other live-action superhero adaptations, but what the character has become in the film will be received with mixed results. In the comics, Taskmaster’s real identity is Anthony Masters and he’s a mercenary not unlike Deadpool (the two have fought together and against each other). Copying fighting styles and weapon techniques is similar to the film, but it’s all thanks to his incredible memory and photographic reflexes.
The character is altered to fit the story in the Black Widow film. It’s not necessarily a bad thing as it gives a bigger purpose for the character since it suddenly becomes a major part of Natasha’s storyline, but how the character evolves over the course of the film seems to almost relieve Natasha of her past sins rather than continue to serve as a catalyst. Taskmaster is generally involved in some of the best hand-to-hand combat sequences, but seems to be left hanging by the end of the film. We could see the character again, but whether or not the desire is there to see Taskmaster return is debatable.
The free-fall sequence that has been teased in the trailers is Black Widow’s most unique source of action. There’s exploding elements and falling debris, Natasha trying to save someone’s life, and Taskmaster thrown in attempting to mess up whatever she has planned; plus a bunch of goons bringing up the rear that will obviously be taken out in peak fashion. The sequence is like a duel to the death taking place on the edge of a volcano that’s about to erupt. It’s on the verge of being overkill, but is just awesome enough to trigger all of the adrenaline in your body.
Kevin Feige apparently wanted an equal amount of screen time for both Natasha and Yelena. With the after-credits sequence, Natasha being very dead after the events of Infinity War, and the reports that Yelena may be the new Black Widow, she’s essentially the star of the film and for good reason. The character begins as an individual with a chip on her shoulder from someone from her past, but Florence Pugh is able to add humor and empathy with her performance. Yelena has the best one-liners in the film (“That would be a cool way to die,”) and is essentially the best source of comedic relief (i.e. her hysterectomy rant), as well. She is the one character in the film you’d want to see more of after Black Widow ends.
The storyline of Black Widow doesn’t feel like anything you haven’t experienced cinematically before, especially within the confines of the MCU. An evil man is responsible for pulling the strings of a bunch of women that would kick his ass otherwise. Unfortunately, Ray Winstone doesn’t feel all that intimidating as Dreykov since he doesn’t do much besides talk in Black Widow. The point is made in the film that is all there’s really needed of the character, but Dreykov’s biggest weapon is his mouth. However, his verbal skills don’t seem advantageous enough to make him such a threat let alone keep him alive for over 20 years.
It also feels like every MCU film has its on-screen characters competing over who can get the most laughs; this is something that only got worse after Thor: Ragnarok proved to be a success. Marvel films are already so formulaic with most villains being introduced and killed within the confines of a single film. Natasha’s spy family all feel like minor extensions of herself. Rachel Weisz, despite not aging a day in nearly 30 years, is forgettable as Melina. David Harbour is essentially his character from Stranger things cosplaying as Mr. Incredible with a Russian accent. Even Florence Pugh’s Yelena Belova character is basically a blonde younger version of Natasha even though they’re not related by blood.
Black Widow clocks in at over two hours and it feels like a film that could have been edited down. Witnessing the events of a dysfunctional spy family who then spend good chunks of the film reminiscing about those moments the audience has already seen is redundant storytelling that feels like nothing more than filler.
Black Widow is worth seeing for Florence Pugh, the free-fall action sequence, and anything involving Taskmaster before it’s revealed who is under the mask. Everything else about Black Widow feels like it was done better by the films it was supposedly influenced by and mostly feels like a diluted imitation of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. It’s fantastic that women are getting more opportunities in big summer blockbusters like this one, but it’s also disheartening since their filmmaking skills are shackled to formulaic superfluity that obviously stands in the way of creating extraordinary cinema.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated If Beale Street Could Talk (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Love and Rage against the machine.
The baby asked,
‘Is there not one righteous among them?”
― James Baldwin, If Beale Street Could Talk
Beale Street refers to the jumpin’ heart of Memphis where Louis Armstrong was born. As explained in text from Baldwin’s source book (requiring a speed read!) it’s used as a metaphor for the birthplace of every black person in America. (“Every black person in America was born on Beale Street“). But the story is set in Harlem, New York, and with this intellectual stretch, before I even get past the title, I am immediately reaching for the “P-word”, of which more later.
The Plot
Tish (KiKi Layne) is 19 and in love with her lifelong friend ‘Fonny’ (Stephan James). So much in love in fact (and so careless) that Tish is now pregnant with his child. Tish must break this news to both families herself, since Fonny is inside awaiting trial for a vicious rape that he claims he didn’t commit. Tish and their joint families are trying to help, but can Fonny be released in time to see the birth of his child? Or are the institutions so set against him that release is impossible and death row might await?
Interwoven with Love and Anger
At its heart, this film portrays a truly beautiful love story. Tish and Fonny (both adorably played by the young leads) are friends becoming more than friends. We see their emerging love through flashback scenes. Some of these, particularly one on a metro train, are exquisitely done; long gazes into eyes, starting as one thing and ending as another.
In another scene, Fonny takes Tish’s virginity, and it’s done with style, taste and finesse. For younger teens this should be compulsory viewing as an antidote to all the horrible porn they are seeing on the internet: THIS is what sex, based on a foundation of true love, is all about. (The film is UK15 rated for “infrequent very strong language, strong sex” – I actually agree with the rating for the language (and actually I think an act of marital violence should also have also been referenced)…. but not for the sex, which should be 12A).
It’s a love story then? Well, yes, but offset against that, it’s a very angry film, seething with rage about how the police force and the justice system is set ‘against the black man’. Director Barry Jenkins (of – eventual – Oscar winner “Moonlight” fame) has a message to impart and he is intent on imparting it.
A great ensemble performance
The film didn’t get a SAG nomination for the ensemble cast, but it almost feels that they missed out here. As well as the two young leads being spectacular, the whole of the rest of the cast really gel well together, particularly the respective parents: Colman Domingo (“Selma“) as Tish’s father Joseph; Regina King as Tish’s mother Sharon; Michael Beach (“Patriots Day“) as Fonny’s father Frank and Aunjanue Ellis as his bible-bashing mother. A dramatic scene where they all collectively hear the news about the pregnancy is both comical and shocking in equal measure.
Poor sound mixing
If this film gets an Oscar nomination for sound, I’ll frankly be cross! There is significant use of sonorous, bass-heavy music and effects (including a lovely cello theme by Nicholas Britell) – all very effective; there is a lot of earnest and quietly spoken dialogue between the characters – also moody and effective. Unfortunately the two are mixed together in some scenes and frankly I couldn’t make out what was being said. Most frustrating.
In addition, there is voiceover narration from Tish (if you follow my blog regularly you KNOW what I think about that!). Actually, this isn’t as overly intrusive as in films like “The Hate U Give“, but it sounds like it was recorded in a dustbin! It’s a bit like that effect you get with headphones where the plug isn’t quite in the socket, and everything sounds way off and tinny. When combined with Layne’s accent the effect, again, made the dialogue difficult to comprehend.
The c-word and the n-word
There’s a degree of bad language in the film, albeit mild in comparison to “The Favourite“! Tish’s sister (Teyonah Parris) uses the c-word in one very funny dissing of Fonny’s ‘up-themselves’ sisters (Ebony Obsidian and Dominique Thorne). But the n-word is used repeatedly during the film, and that I can never get used to. I ‘get it’ (in the sense that I understand the perception) that this is a word that ‘only black people can use between themselves’. But this just feels elitist and wrong to me. At a time when Viggo Mortensen gets crucified for using it once (while being descriptive and in-context) during a press junket for “Green Book“, I just feel that if a word is taboo it should be taboo, period.
The p-word
My p-word here is “pretentious”. Barry Jenkins clearly feels he has something to prove after the success of “Moonlight“, and there are certainly moments of directorial brilliance in the film. As previously mentioned, the sex scene is one of the best I’ve seen in a long while. Also beautifully done are a birthing scene and two confrontational scenes in Puerto Rico. But there are also moments that seem to be staged, artificial and too ‘arty’ for their own good. Any hidden meaning behind them completely passed me by. (Examples are Sharon’s wig scene and a pan around Fonny’s wood sculpture). It all seems to be “trying too hard”.
Hate for the police is also writ large on the film, with every discriminatory police officer in the whole of the US embodied in the wicked sneering face of the police office Bell (Ed Skrein).
A platform that should be used for more than ranting
This is a film written and directed by an American black man (Jenkins) and largely fully cast with American black people. And I’m a white Englishman commenting on it. I’m clearly unqualified to pass judgement on how black America really feels about things! But comment I will from this fug of ignorance.
It feels to me that the “Black Lives Movement” has given, at long last, black film-makers like Jenkins a platform in cinema to present from. This is a great thing. But I’m sensing that at the moment the tone of the output from that platform (such as this film) seems to me heavily tinged with anger: a scream of frustration about the system and racial injustice over the years. It’s the film-makers right to make films about subjects dear to them. And I’m sure this summer we’ll sadly again see atrocities as previously seen in the likes of Ferguson and Dallas, fuelling the fire of hate. But I would personally really like to see someone like Jenkins use his undoubted talents to make a more uplifting film: a film reflecting the more positive strives that are happening in society, allowing for people of all races and all sexual orientations to make their way in business (not drug-running or crime!) and/or life in general. Those good news stories – the positive side of race relations – are out there and my view is that someone like Barry Jenkins should be telling them.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t as much of a fan of “Moonlight” as the Academy, and this film also left me conflicted. The film is well-made and the cast is very engaging. It also has a love story at its heart that is moody but well-done. Overall though the movie felt over-engineered and a little pretentious, and that knocked it down a few pegs for me.
‘Is there not one righteous among them?”
― James Baldwin, If Beale Street Could Talk
Beale Street refers to the jumpin’ heart of Memphis where Louis Armstrong was born. As explained in text from Baldwin’s source book (requiring a speed read!) it’s used as a metaphor for the birthplace of every black person in America. (“Every black person in America was born on Beale Street“). But the story is set in Harlem, New York, and with this intellectual stretch, before I even get past the title, I am immediately reaching for the “P-word”, of which more later.
The Plot
Tish (KiKi Layne) is 19 and in love with her lifelong friend ‘Fonny’ (Stephan James). So much in love in fact (and so careless) that Tish is now pregnant with his child. Tish must break this news to both families herself, since Fonny is inside awaiting trial for a vicious rape that he claims he didn’t commit. Tish and their joint families are trying to help, but can Fonny be released in time to see the birth of his child? Or are the institutions so set against him that release is impossible and death row might await?
Interwoven with Love and Anger
At its heart, this film portrays a truly beautiful love story. Tish and Fonny (both adorably played by the young leads) are friends becoming more than friends. We see their emerging love through flashback scenes. Some of these, particularly one on a metro train, are exquisitely done; long gazes into eyes, starting as one thing and ending as another.
In another scene, Fonny takes Tish’s virginity, and it’s done with style, taste and finesse. For younger teens this should be compulsory viewing as an antidote to all the horrible porn they are seeing on the internet: THIS is what sex, based on a foundation of true love, is all about. (The film is UK15 rated for “infrequent very strong language, strong sex” – I actually agree with the rating for the language (and actually I think an act of marital violence should also have also been referenced)…. but not for the sex, which should be 12A).
It’s a love story then? Well, yes, but offset against that, it’s a very angry film, seething with rage about how the police force and the justice system is set ‘against the black man’. Director Barry Jenkins (of – eventual – Oscar winner “Moonlight” fame) has a message to impart and he is intent on imparting it.
A great ensemble performance
The film didn’t get a SAG nomination for the ensemble cast, but it almost feels that they missed out here. As well as the two young leads being spectacular, the whole of the rest of the cast really gel well together, particularly the respective parents: Colman Domingo (“Selma“) as Tish’s father Joseph; Regina King as Tish’s mother Sharon; Michael Beach (“Patriots Day“) as Fonny’s father Frank and Aunjanue Ellis as his bible-bashing mother. A dramatic scene where they all collectively hear the news about the pregnancy is both comical and shocking in equal measure.
Poor sound mixing
If this film gets an Oscar nomination for sound, I’ll frankly be cross! There is significant use of sonorous, bass-heavy music and effects (including a lovely cello theme by Nicholas Britell) – all very effective; there is a lot of earnest and quietly spoken dialogue between the characters – also moody and effective. Unfortunately the two are mixed together in some scenes and frankly I couldn’t make out what was being said. Most frustrating.
In addition, there is voiceover narration from Tish (if you follow my blog regularly you KNOW what I think about that!). Actually, this isn’t as overly intrusive as in films like “The Hate U Give“, but it sounds like it was recorded in a dustbin! It’s a bit like that effect you get with headphones where the plug isn’t quite in the socket, and everything sounds way off and tinny. When combined with Layne’s accent the effect, again, made the dialogue difficult to comprehend.
The c-word and the n-word
There’s a degree of bad language in the film, albeit mild in comparison to “The Favourite“! Tish’s sister (Teyonah Parris) uses the c-word in one very funny dissing of Fonny’s ‘up-themselves’ sisters (Ebony Obsidian and Dominique Thorne). But the n-word is used repeatedly during the film, and that I can never get used to. I ‘get it’ (in the sense that I understand the perception) that this is a word that ‘only black people can use between themselves’. But this just feels elitist and wrong to me. At a time when Viggo Mortensen gets crucified for using it once (while being descriptive and in-context) during a press junket for “Green Book“, I just feel that if a word is taboo it should be taboo, period.
The p-word
My p-word here is “pretentious”. Barry Jenkins clearly feels he has something to prove after the success of “Moonlight“, and there are certainly moments of directorial brilliance in the film. As previously mentioned, the sex scene is one of the best I’ve seen in a long while. Also beautifully done are a birthing scene and two confrontational scenes in Puerto Rico. But there are also moments that seem to be staged, artificial and too ‘arty’ for their own good. Any hidden meaning behind them completely passed me by. (Examples are Sharon’s wig scene and a pan around Fonny’s wood sculpture). It all seems to be “trying too hard”.
Hate for the police is also writ large on the film, with every discriminatory police officer in the whole of the US embodied in the wicked sneering face of the police office Bell (Ed Skrein).
A platform that should be used for more than ranting
This is a film written and directed by an American black man (Jenkins) and largely fully cast with American black people. And I’m a white Englishman commenting on it. I’m clearly unqualified to pass judgement on how black America really feels about things! But comment I will from this fug of ignorance.
It feels to me that the “Black Lives Movement” has given, at long last, black film-makers like Jenkins a platform in cinema to present from. This is a great thing. But I’m sensing that at the moment the tone of the output from that platform (such as this film) seems to me heavily tinged with anger: a scream of frustration about the system and racial injustice over the years. It’s the film-makers right to make films about subjects dear to them. And I’m sure this summer we’ll sadly again see atrocities as previously seen in the likes of Ferguson and Dallas, fuelling the fire of hate. But I would personally really like to see someone like Jenkins use his undoubted talents to make a more uplifting film: a film reflecting the more positive strives that are happening in society, allowing for people of all races and all sexual orientations to make their way in business (not drug-running or crime!) and/or life in general. Those good news stories – the positive side of race relations – are out there and my view is that someone like Barry Jenkins should be telling them.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t as much of a fan of “Moonlight” as the Academy, and this film also left me conflicted. The film is well-made and the cast is very engaging. It also has a love story at its heart that is moody but well-done. Overall though the movie felt over-engineered and a little pretentious, and that knocked it down a few pegs for me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Initially when a franchise reboots a series not five years from its last installment this can often be seen as a sign that they’ve run out of ideas. It was reportedly the inability to find a suitable script that drove director-producer Sam Raimi and the stars of the Spider-man series away from a possible fourth outing and forced Sony/Columbia start fresh.
Selecting the relatively new Marc Webb who, outside of “500 Days of Summer”, had worked on music videos and most recently directed episode of The Office and the pilot for Lone Star, seemed like a very odd choice to turn over the billion-dollar franchise. The selection of American-born English actor Andrew Garfield also seemed to be an interesting choice to don the tights of the wall crawler.
Thankfully this is exactly the fresh start that the series needed. Even though I went into the film with guarded and reserved expectations I must say that I’m absolutely delighted with how the final product came out as this is a very fresh and faithful adaptation of the beloved comic book character that, in my opinion is the best adaptation to date on film.
The screenplay by James Vanderbilt was based on a story credited to three other writers all of whom clearly understand the character and the source material and are focused first and foremost with being respectful to it rather than putting their own unique stamp and take on the franchise.
The film does take a little bit of liberty by showing Peter Parker’s parents as they place young Peter in the custody of Ben and May Parker (Martin Sheen and Sally Fields) as they flee into a rainy night from implied danger, never to be seen again.
The film continues with teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), plodding his way through high school. As brilliant as Peter is academically, he is extremely awkward around girls especially the lovely Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who never fails to catch his eye. When a clue from his father’s past arises, Peter finds himself at Oscorp where Gwen works as an intern. Peter also finds himself on the radar of his dad’s former partner Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who becomes intrigued by young Peter’s scientific theories and even more so in his abilities when he learns that he is the offspring of his former partner.
Dr. Connors is working on cross species genetics and hopes that not only will it someday replaces missing arm, but will also pave a bold new direction for humanity. During a visit to the lab Peter, is bitten by a radioactive spider, and as any fan of the series knows, begins to exhibit amazing strength, agility, and perception, as well as the ability to walk on walls and cling to ceilings. In a very refreshing return to form, Peter fashions his famous web slingers rather than have them be organic as the previous film series did.
When a twist of fate puts Peter on the path of vengeance, he becomes a masked vigilante who uses his newfound abilities to rid New York some of its less pleasant citizens. These activities do not sit well with Captain Stacy (Denis Leary), who also happens to be Gwen’s father. As Peter and Gwen become closer, the duality of hiding his new identity from Capt. Stacy and Aunt May becomes even more imperative.
Naturally, it would not be much of a superhero film without a super villain, and Dr. Connors is more than willing to step up to this. Faced with pressure from his bosses he decides to use an experimental serum on himself. At first he is delighted as he seems to regrow his lost limb, but then in a Jekyll & Hyde-like transformation he transforms into a gigantic lizard creature bent on revenge and destruction as he attempts to complete a plan that will devastate millions of New York citizens.
Since Peter helped provide the equation that led to the formula that transform Dr. Connors, he feels obligated to stop the raging creature and to save his mentor no matter the cost. What follows are some truly spectacular action sequences including sewer battles in an extremely memorable finale across the Manhattan skyline.
While the film did take its time getting started as it established its back story and introduced the characters, once it got rolling it was an extremely fun and exhilarating ride. Garfield and Stone have a very good chemistry with one another and the reports of them recently dating off screen further solidifies their on-screen bond. Garfield wonderfully captures the conflicted emotions of Peter Parker as well as the brilliantly awkward genius that he is.
He runs the gamut of emotions from showing his anger and frustration to the dopey awkwardness of his interactions with Gwen and very believable manner. When he becomes infused with his new abilities you can almost share the glee that he has as he swings and flips around the landscape. The sheltered, socially awkward young man disappears when he dons the mask. He’s free to let himself go and Garfield does this with a childlike delight as well as the trademark quips and wisecracks that made the character such a beloved icon.
Garfield handles the physical duties of the role quite well and shines both in and out of the costume. I thought Tobey Maguire did a fantastic job bringing the character to life previously, but in my opinion Garfield has captured the essence of Peter Parker/ Spider-man and made it his own with a truly wonderful performance all around.
Stone does a great job as the love interest in the film as she is more than just eye candy and the typical damsel in distress far too common with this type of film. She challenges Peter and you can see some gleeful delight in her eyes when Peter awkwardly stumbles around her in an attempt to ask her out. Because she clearly enjoys the situation Gwen is not about to make it any easier on Peter, even though she’s been waiting for him to muster the courage for ages. She’s a strong and determined woman who gives a good range of emotions in her scenes and complements Garfield exceptionally well.
The supporting cast was very good especially Leary and Fields and Ifans does a good job as the quietly restrained Connors. In what could’ve easily been a scenery chewing, over-the-top Machiavellian bad guy, Ifans portrays Connors as a very sympathetic and understandable figure. He is a scientist first and foremost who is trying to do what he believes is right. He is not suited for the political machinations of a large corporation and when he begins this transformation and the animal side takes over there is still a hint of humanity amongst all the CGI work for the re-imagined Lizard.
While it did take me a while to get used to the look of The Lizard having become accustomed to his portrayal in comics and cartoons, I have to say it was a good updating it still stayed faithful to the essence of the original character.
Webb wisely decided to shoot in 3-D and not do a post filming conversion. It is the visually captivating and at times stunning cinema photography that really sets the tone for the film. You can truly get an idea of what it is like to be Spider-man as he swings and flips through the city and the point of view shots of his web firing out to latch onto objects and take down opponents are a lot of fun. Webb clearly knows the subject matter and gets the most out of his very talented cast and tells a very entertaining yet human action story and lets the effects support the film rather than carry it.
The film was much better than “Spider-man 3”. I am so happy that the franchise is in good hands and is moving forward in the right direction. Although the movie did take a while to get up to speed once it got rolling I did not want it to end, and I commented to my wife that I don’t want to have to wait 2 to 3 years for the next installment of the film I’m ready for more now. As a lifelong fan of comic I can honestly say I am beyond delighted with the new film, cast, director, and direction for the series.
Selecting the relatively new Marc Webb who, outside of “500 Days of Summer”, had worked on music videos and most recently directed episode of The Office and the pilot for Lone Star, seemed like a very odd choice to turn over the billion-dollar franchise. The selection of American-born English actor Andrew Garfield also seemed to be an interesting choice to don the tights of the wall crawler.
Thankfully this is exactly the fresh start that the series needed. Even though I went into the film with guarded and reserved expectations I must say that I’m absolutely delighted with how the final product came out as this is a very fresh and faithful adaptation of the beloved comic book character that, in my opinion is the best adaptation to date on film.
The screenplay by James Vanderbilt was based on a story credited to three other writers all of whom clearly understand the character and the source material and are focused first and foremost with being respectful to it rather than putting their own unique stamp and take on the franchise.
The film does take a little bit of liberty by showing Peter Parker’s parents as they place young Peter in the custody of Ben and May Parker (Martin Sheen and Sally Fields) as they flee into a rainy night from implied danger, never to be seen again.
The film continues with teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), plodding his way through high school. As brilliant as Peter is academically, he is extremely awkward around girls especially the lovely Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who never fails to catch his eye. When a clue from his father’s past arises, Peter finds himself at Oscorp where Gwen works as an intern. Peter also finds himself on the radar of his dad’s former partner Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who becomes intrigued by young Peter’s scientific theories and even more so in his abilities when he learns that he is the offspring of his former partner.
Dr. Connors is working on cross species genetics and hopes that not only will it someday replaces missing arm, but will also pave a bold new direction for humanity. During a visit to the lab Peter, is bitten by a radioactive spider, and as any fan of the series knows, begins to exhibit amazing strength, agility, and perception, as well as the ability to walk on walls and cling to ceilings. In a very refreshing return to form, Peter fashions his famous web slingers rather than have them be organic as the previous film series did.
When a twist of fate puts Peter on the path of vengeance, he becomes a masked vigilante who uses his newfound abilities to rid New York some of its less pleasant citizens. These activities do not sit well with Captain Stacy (Denis Leary), who also happens to be Gwen’s father. As Peter and Gwen become closer, the duality of hiding his new identity from Capt. Stacy and Aunt May becomes even more imperative.
Naturally, it would not be much of a superhero film without a super villain, and Dr. Connors is more than willing to step up to this. Faced with pressure from his bosses he decides to use an experimental serum on himself. At first he is delighted as he seems to regrow his lost limb, but then in a Jekyll & Hyde-like transformation he transforms into a gigantic lizard creature bent on revenge and destruction as he attempts to complete a plan that will devastate millions of New York citizens.
Since Peter helped provide the equation that led to the formula that transform Dr. Connors, he feels obligated to stop the raging creature and to save his mentor no matter the cost. What follows are some truly spectacular action sequences including sewer battles in an extremely memorable finale across the Manhattan skyline.
While the film did take its time getting started as it established its back story and introduced the characters, once it got rolling it was an extremely fun and exhilarating ride. Garfield and Stone have a very good chemistry with one another and the reports of them recently dating off screen further solidifies their on-screen bond. Garfield wonderfully captures the conflicted emotions of Peter Parker as well as the brilliantly awkward genius that he is.
He runs the gamut of emotions from showing his anger and frustration to the dopey awkwardness of his interactions with Gwen and very believable manner. When he becomes infused with his new abilities you can almost share the glee that he has as he swings and flips around the landscape. The sheltered, socially awkward young man disappears when he dons the mask. He’s free to let himself go and Garfield does this with a childlike delight as well as the trademark quips and wisecracks that made the character such a beloved icon.
Garfield handles the physical duties of the role quite well and shines both in and out of the costume. I thought Tobey Maguire did a fantastic job bringing the character to life previously, but in my opinion Garfield has captured the essence of Peter Parker/ Spider-man and made it his own with a truly wonderful performance all around.
Stone does a great job as the love interest in the film as she is more than just eye candy and the typical damsel in distress far too common with this type of film. She challenges Peter and you can see some gleeful delight in her eyes when Peter awkwardly stumbles around her in an attempt to ask her out. Because she clearly enjoys the situation Gwen is not about to make it any easier on Peter, even though she’s been waiting for him to muster the courage for ages. She’s a strong and determined woman who gives a good range of emotions in her scenes and complements Garfield exceptionally well.
The supporting cast was very good especially Leary and Fields and Ifans does a good job as the quietly restrained Connors. In what could’ve easily been a scenery chewing, over-the-top Machiavellian bad guy, Ifans portrays Connors as a very sympathetic and understandable figure. He is a scientist first and foremost who is trying to do what he believes is right. He is not suited for the political machinations of a large corporation and when he begins this transformation and the animal side takes over there is still a hint of humanity amongst all the CGI work for the re-imagined Lizard.
While it did take me a while to get used to the look of The Lizard having become accustomed to his portrayal in comics and cartoons, I have to say it was a good updating it still stayed faithful to the essence of the original character.
Webb wisely decided to shoot in 3-D and not do a post filming conversion. It is the visually captivating and at times stunning cinema photography that really sets the tone for the film. You can truly get an idea of what it is like to be Spider-man as he swings and flips through the city and the point of view shots of his web firing out to latch onto objects and take down opponents are a lot of fun. Webb clearly knows the subject matter and gets the most out of his very talented cast and tells a very entertaining yet human action story and lets the effects support the film rather than carry it.
The film was much better than “Spider-man 3”. I am so happy that the franchise is in good hands and is moving forward in the right direction. Although the movie did take a while to get up to speed once it got rolling I did not want it to end, and I commented to my wife that I don’t want to have to wait 2 to 3 years for the next installment of the film I’m ready for more now. As a lifelong fan of comic I can honestly say I am beyond delighted with the new film, cast, director, and direction for the series.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Due to circumstances we have all lived with now for about 8 months, that scarce need a word more said about them, this has remained only the second film I have seen at a cinema in 2020, following an early January viewing of The Rise of Skywalker. And it will probably be the last film I head out to see on the big screen for a while. This, naturally, breaks my heart. It does, however, place Christopher Nolan’s complex thriller into a very peculiar and memorable place in the collective psyche of film lovers.
For many it will have been the film that brought them out of lockdown number one into a world of slight hope that normality was returning. As it co-incided with my daughter’s birthday it became part of a treat day out that although socially distanced was my first attempt to do all the things I hadn’t done for a while; eat out in a restaurant, have a pint in a bar, and then see a movie. The experience, whilst still enjoyable and memorable, was tainted by how surreal and empty the world felt – the meal was in an half empty and cold Hard Rock Cafe, with no music and a smell of disinfectant; the pint was in a pop up outside bar that only took orders via a phone app in advance; and the movie was attended by six people, of which we were two, separated by not two metres but at least ten!
I have been in some screenings that were dead quiet before, but not for a film so anticipated and more or less mainstream. It was odd. Hats off to the staff of Everyman, Glasgow, however, who were exemplary in their courtesy, welcoming and safety precautions. It wasn’t their fault it was empty, and I applaud them for keeping the ball rolling at that time around the start of September. At least the sofas were comfy, the place was warm and the smell was still of popcorn and not domestos.
I had been looking forward to the film immensely. The hype and build-up to it had come with a lot of baggage, with rumours of production delays and script issues going back a few years. It was shrouded in mystery, with even the trailer being delayed until the very last moment and critics not getting to see it until a day before release, such was the fear of spoilers leaking out. My first concern, being so excited by the prospect of another time bending classic to join Memento, Interstellar and Inception in the ranks of “OK, what just happened” masterpieces, was that the sound during the trailers was very very low – if they kept it that low during the actual film I would demand my money back… I needn’t have worried…
Never in my life have I felt as if my eardrums were about to burst whilst watching a film! Literally, at times, Hans Zimmer’s powerful and emotive score was vibrating my testicles! Add to that the fact that a lot of the dialogue seemed mumbled and drowned out by it, and it made the first 45 minutes very difficult to enjoy. Was this horrendous sound mix a mistake? Or very much part of the plan to overwhelm the senses and confuse the brain? Was it part of the puzzle or a massive technical oversight? As almost everyone seems to have the same complaint about it, the jury is still out on that one…
And so, it took a little while for me to atune to the tone, regardless of how hard you had to focus to take in anything of what was going on. There was a point where I became certain I wasn’t going to like it – I braced myself for disappointment. And then… at a certain moment in a certain scene the penny dropped and so did my jaw, as the full realisation of where this was going, and how unique and mind blowing that concept was, finally kicked in. From that moment on it just got better and better, as the technical achievement required, let alone intelligence, to pull this off surpassed all previous levels of anything I can ever remember.
The “Wow” moments just kept on coming as the action, tension and intrigue kept rising to fever pitch. In the end, so profoundly bewildering were the potential possibilities of the plot and premise that I gave up trying to meet it intellectually and just allowed it to wash over me emotionally, knowing that repeat viewings would allow me to engage with it in that way later.
John David Washington as “the protagonist” is suitably neutral and unshowy in the role; threatening to be compared to Bond or Bourne, but never quite being either, as this world, despite it’s surface glamour and underground seediness feels much closer to DiCaprio’s suit wearing mind spy in Inception than either of those. For anyone who didn’t yet catch his terrific turn in BlacKkKlansman this may be their first encounter with him, and you’d have to say he has a very solid, dependable quality, without ever being starry or attention seeking. Watchable, for sure, but never chewing the scenery at the cost of the story – and surely that is why Nolan chose him.
Beside Washington is another excellent performance by the increasingly impressive Robert Pattinson. His role as the enigmatic Neil here grows on you minute to minute during the film, and afterwards you wonder if he wasn’t the best thing about the entire production… there is a subtlety of meaning in all his scenes that is only revealed late on, and demands a further watch or two to get every nuance from. He gives the impression he is entirely in control of the full meaning of the film and his own performance, so much so he strikes me as the pivot that would tip you either way on whether you liked the film or not.
And I have to admit not liking it is a valid option. You couldn’t possibly watch it whilst tired or in a bad mood, it is just too full on, bordering on oppressive at times. There are also a few supporting roles that I’m not 100% certain of, most notably Kenneth Brannagh as the seeming villain of the piece, Sator. His accent is a distraction, and it feels like a character you’ve seen him play before – fine in most ways, but nothing special – and I found myself wishing they had cast someone else in that role. Likewise with the less exposed Elizabeth Debicki – adequate, but not transcendent, as her character might have been with a more charismatic actress.
My overall impression was definitely affected by how much my daughter enjoyed it – she loves having a mystery to solve, especially if it involves time or some other sci-fi concept. The pleasure of it was chatting it over excitedly afterwards, to see if either of us had truly understood the full story, in the same way I remember doing with others about all Nolan’s concept pieces over the years. If you come to it being less than bothered about having to unlock a puzzle box then it may very well piss you off, to the extent you either just give up or sit back and enjoy the ride. However, I would assert confidently that it is worth the effort and will reward multiple viewings over time. Especially as more clues to its meaning are discussed and revealed.
One thing that can be said with certainty is that there is no other film like this that has ever been made. It feels different and beyond comparison in many crucial ways. The ambition of Nolan has to be applauded. I only wish he would go back and sort out that sound design before I get around to seeing it again.
For many it will have been the film that brought them out of lockdown number one into a world of slight hope that normality was returning. As it co-incided with my daughter’s birthday it became part of a treat day out that although socially distanced was my first attempt to do all the things I hadn’t done for a while; eat out in a restaurant, have a pint in a bar, and then see a movie. The experience, whilst still enjoyable and memorable, was tainted by how surreal and empty the world felt – the meal was in an half empty and cold Hard Rock Cafe, with no music and a smell of disinfectant; the pint was in a pop up outside bar that only took orders via a phone app in advance; and the movie was attended by six people, of which we were two, separated by not two metres but at least ten!
I have been in some screenings that were dead quiet before, but not for a film so anticipated and more or less mainstream. It was odd. Hats off to the staff of Everyman, Glasgow, however, who were exemplary in their courtesy, welcoming and safety precautions. It wasn’t their fault it was empty, and I applaud them for keeping the ball rolling at that time around the start of September. At least the sofas were comfy, the place was warm and the smell was still of popcorn and not domestos.
I had been looking forward to the film immensely. The hype and build-up to it had come with a lot of baggage, with rumours of production delays and script issues going back a few years. It was shrouded in mystery, with even the trailer being delayed until the very last moment and critics not getting to see it until a day before release, such was the fear of spoilers leaking out. My first concern, being so excited by the prospect of another time bending classic to join Memento, Interstellar and Inception in the ranks of “OK, what just happened” masterpieces, was that the sound during the trailers was very very low – if they kept it that low during the actual film I would demand my money back… I needn’t have worried…
Never in my life have I felt as if my eardrums were about to burst whilst watching a film! Literally, at times, Hans Zimmer’s powerful and emotive score was vibrating my testicles! Add to that the fact that a lot of the dialogue seemed mumbled and drowned out by it, and it made the first 45 minutes very difficult to enjoy. Was this horrendous sound mix a mistake? Or very much part of the plan to overwhelm the senses and confuse the brain? Was it part of the puzzle or a massive technical oversight? As almost everyone seems to have the same complaint about it, the jury is still out on that one…
And so, it took a little while for me to atune to the tone, regardless of how hard you had to focus to take in anything of what was going on. There was a point where I became certain I wasn’t going to like it – I braced myself for disappointment. And then… at a certain moment in a certain scene the penny dropped and so did my jaw, as the full realisation of where this was going, and how unique and mind blowing that concept was, finally kicked in. From that moment on it just got better and better, as the technical achievement required, let alone intelligence, to pull this off surpassed all previous levels of anything I can ever remember.
The “Wow” moments just kept on coming as the action, tension and intrigue kept rising to fever pitch. In the end, so profoundly bewildering were the potential possibilities of the plot and premise that I gave up trying to meet it intellectually and just allowed it to wash over me emotionally, knowing that repeat viewings would allow me to engage with it in that way later.
John David Washington as “the protagonist” is suitably neutral and unshowy in the role; threatening to be compared to Bond or Bourne, but never quite being either, as this world, despite it’s surface glamour and underground seediness feels much closer to DiCaprio’s suit wearing mind spy in Inception than either of those. For anyone who didn’t yet catch his terrific turn in BlacKkKlansman this may be their first encounter with him, and you’d have to say he has a very solid, dependable quality, without ever being starry or attention seeking. Watchable, for sure, but never chewing the scenery at the cost of the story – and surely that is why Nolan chose him.
Beside Washington is another excellent performance by the increasingly impressive Robert Pattinson. His role as the enigmatic Neil here grows on you minute to minute during the film, and afterwards you wonder if he wasn’t the best thing about the entire production… there is a subtlety of meaning in all his scenes that is only revealed late on, and demands a further watch or two to get every nuance from. He gives the impression he is entirely in control of the full meaning of the film and his own performance, so much so he strikes me as the pivot that would tip you either way on whether you liked the film or not.
And I have to admit not liking it is a valid option. You couldn’t possibly watch it whilst tired or in a bad mood, it is just too full on, bordering on oppressive at times. There are also a few supporting roles that I’m not 100% certain of, most notably Kenneth Brannagh as the seeming villain of the piece, Sator. His accent is a distraction, and it feels like a character you’ve seen him play before – fine in most ways, but nothing special – and I found myself wishing they had cast someone else in that role. Likewise with the less exposed Elizabeth Debicki – adequate, but not transcendent, as her character might have been with a more charismatic actress.
My overall impression was definitely affected by how much my daughter enjoyed it – she loves having a mystery to solve, especially if it involves time or some other sci-fi concept. The pleasure of it was chatting it over excitedly afterwards, to see if either of us had truly understood the full story, in the same way I remember doing with others about all Nolan’s concept pieces over the years. If you come to it being less than bothered about having to unlock a puzzle box then it may very well piss you off, to the extent you either just give up or sit back and enjoy the ride. However, I would assert confidently that it is worth the effort and will reward multiple viewings over time. Especially as more clues to its meaning are discussed and revealed.
One thing that can be said with certainty is that there is no other film like this that has ever been made. It feels different and beyond comparison in many crucial ways. The ambition of Nolan has to be applauded. I only wish he would go back and sort out that sound design before I get around to seeing it again.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
May 18, 2019
"I can save today, you can save the world"
Remember when some trickster claiming to be a former worker from Warner Bros. wrote an open letter saying that Wonder Woman was just another mess of a DC movie, et cetera? I remember how Patty Jenkins responded to that. She tweeted: "Just wait and you'll see".
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could even consider that there was the slightest chance of this movie not being good, and I'm gonna tell you why: this is the very first big female-led superhero movie, in which the title character also happens to be the greatest female superhero in history. If you really think that Patty Jenkins, also the first woman to ever direct a superhero movie of this caliber in a industry where women barely stand any chances to get to direct major blockbusters, would let this movie be anything less than great... You've got another thing coming, mate.
Wonder Woman is a traditional, oldschool superhero movie, but the first essentially feminist one at it, and they couldn't have chosen a better setting to tell this story, or a better character to star in it. The movie's social comments are strong and constantly present, but never forced, because it is only natural: by placing Diana, a princess raised in an island of warrior women, in the middle of the reality of World War I, the absurdities of the feminine role in the world - and so many other human corruptions - automatically come to light. The way Diana reacts to this world raises a great sense of awareness, with a touch of poignant humor to it. There is a very funny subtle arc of her wanting to take out her cloak, but not being able to because her armor is "barely any clothes", hinting not only at society's sexist feminine dressing code - which is still a thing today -, but also gradually adding power to the iconography of Wonder Woman in full costume; this is Wonder Woman's much awaited debut on the big screen in a solo movie, and like Superman and Batman before her, her first appearance needed to be something incredibly striking. Patty knew that, Gal knew that, and they made it happen. Even if we already saw her in BVS, the very first time Wonder Woman walks up in full costume here is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in superhero cinema.
Jenkins is extremely devoted to giving Wonder Woman the iconic debut film she deserves, and she nails it - there's quite a bit of remarkable shots and set pieces that let out the same imagetic power as in Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman or even Raimi's Spider-Man, and I must highlight the No Man's Land sequence. It's my favorite part of the movie; Jenkins and Heinberg carefully work on Diana's mindset as she first witness the horrors of human war, not being able to help everyone, horses being hurt so they can move faster, a mother and a child begging for help, and it all leads up to the powerful moment of a woman crossing the land no man could cross - and Heinberg's dialogue doesn't rely on obvious statements such as "fortunately I'm a woman" (I'm looking at you, Batwoman trailer), it simply lets the image strike us, because it is powerful enough by itself, and boy did that cause some serious goosebumps.
Speaking of dialogue... It's so terrific, so well written. The exchanges between Diana and Steve Trevor are very clever and funny, but most of all natural. All the characters are also extremely likable; Allan Heinberg's writing knows that not all of them can be given deep development, but nonetheless he gives them stories, personalities and purposes, and that - plus the charismatic performances - makes them very empathetic. The villains are not as remarkable as in some of the other DCEU films, but they didn't need to be; the movie doesn't require in-depth arcs from its villains. They have a strong presence when they're in scene and a well elaborated lore, and that's everything they need.
Contrary to the Nordic mythology depicted in the MCU, here we are talking about real gods, true deities, not superpowerful aliens that only strike a similar image - and that also brings a few narrative dangers along with it, after all, it was in greek mythological stories that the concept of Deus Ex Machina first appeared. Heinberg's screenplay, though, makes a few clever twists in that mythology to avoid easy solutions, which adds to the storytelling, the world building and the developing of the themes as well. The lore surrounding the God of War Ares, for example, is not a simple Diabolus Ex Machina as "he influences men to war and if you kill him every man goes back to being good and everything's alright", no, it's more narratively complicated and socially engaging than that.
And Gal Gadot... I'm at a loss for words. I'll confess right here that when she was first announced as Wonder Woman, I was one of the few who were very opposed to that casting. I've never been so wrong in my life, and I've never been so happy about it. She really is Wonder Woman. She's so graceful and adorable, but a major badass when she needs to be. The way she moves, the way she curiously looks at things, the way she speaks, and the way she incarnates Diana's evolving from her naive beginnings to the wise warrior... She's not only an icon, she's a true hero. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve's Superman were made for good reasons.
Chris Pine is also great, he walks perfectly in the line between funny and serious, Steve Trevor is a darling character and his chemistry with Gal is on point. Their relationship is very well constructed and becomes highly emotional by the end - there are scenes that filled my heart with joy, and others that made it ache.
The action is exciting and full of originality, and I like how Jenkins uses slow-motion differently than Zack Snyder. I know that Snyder helped her direct some of the action sequences, which is understandable since Jenkins had no experience with this type of movie, but you can tell it's not the same. In the fights themselves, there's this feel of sensibility to how these people react to Diana, and it's slightly different from the typical "regular people react to superhumans among them" trope. The cinematography is very keen on portraying the difference between Themyscira - an island of colors and natural beauty - and "jolly ol' London" - desaturated and smoggy, a scenario in which Diana's colorful armor shines in a most beautiful contrast.
And the soundtrack. Rupert Gregson-Williams made a beautiful score that brings out the best in every scene. It's heroic, very heartfelt, and loyal to the foundations of what makes superhero music so memorable. Gregson-Williams adds new themes to compose Wonder Woman's musical identity, but Hans Zimmer's main theme from BVS still lives, and it plays in some heart-pounding scenes. I love that they're dedicating that much attention to the musical continuity, because amongst Marvel's many qualities, they're doing a lousy job in that area. Wonder Woman's theme is the most catchy superhero theme in a long time, it quickly gained a lot of appreciation and by continuing on using it, Gregson-Williams collaborates to making Wonder Woman the strong cinematic icon she's setting out to be.
The irregular reception of previous DCEU movies also extols the impact of Wonder Woman, as do the distinct styles between the films. One of the DCEU's biggest virtues is that singularity of each film; be it a near disaster movie epic such as Man Of Steel, a complex deconstruction of heroic values such as Batman v Superman, an stylish chaos such as Suicide Squad or a traditional, graceful superhero film such as Wonder Woman, these movies are all in the same universe, and that very fact is an example of its richness. A lot of people will think Wonder Woman is the best DCEU movie of the lot, some will stick to BVS, others to MOS, maybe for some it's Shazam, but that's the fun of it: we can discuss this forever. Each of these movies mean different things to different people, we're way past simply labelling one as "better" and the other as "worse".
Wonder Woman, however, is not simply a movie about a very strong woman. It's an achievement for every woman. There were tons of girls dressed up as Wonder Woman in the theater, and just seeing how ecstatic they were after the movie brought me joy. There were tons of applause. It's a mark. Be that as it may, Wonder Woman will be remembered as the most impactful superhero film of its time. In 1978, Superman showed to the world how a man could fly; in 2017, Wonder Woman showed to the world how a woman can fight.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could even consider that there was the slightest chance of this movie not being good, and I'm gonna tell you why: this is the very first big female-led superhero movie, in which the title character also happens to be the greatest female superhero in history. If you really think that Patty Jenkins, also the first woman to ever direct a superhero movie of this caliber in a industry where women barely stand any chances to get to direct major blockbusters, would let this movie be anything less than great... You've got another thing coming, mate.
Wonder Woman is a traditional, oldschool superhero movie, but the first essentially feminist one at it, and they couldn't have chosen a better setting to tell this story, or a better character to star in it. The movie's social comments are strong and constantly present, but never forced, because it is only natural: by placing Diana, a princess raised in an island of warrior women, in the middle of the reality of World War I, the absurdities of the feminine role in the world - and so many other human corruptions - automatically come to light. The way Diana reacts to this world raises a great sense of awareness, with a touch of poignant humor to it. There is a very funny subtle arc of her wanting to take out her cloak, but not being able to because her armor is "barely any clothes", hinting not only at society's sexist feminine dressing code - which is still a thing today -, but also gradually adding power to the iconography of Wonder Woman in full costume; this is Wonder Woman's much awaited debut on the big screen in a solo movie, and like Superman and Batman before her, her first appearance needed to be something incredibly striking. Patty knew that, Gal knew that, and they made it happen. Even if we already saw her in BVS, the very first time Wonder Woman walks up in full costume here is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in superhero cinema.
Jenkins is extremely devoted to giving Wonder Woman the iconic debut film she deserves, and she nails it - there's quite a bit of remarkable shots and set pieces that let out the same imagetic power as in Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman or even Raimi's Spider-Man, and I must highlight the No Man's Land sequence. It's my favorite part of the movie; Jenkins and Heinberg carefully work on Diana's mindset as she first witness the horrors of human war, not being able to help everyone, horses being hurt so they can move faster, a mother and a child begging for help, and it all leads up to the powerful moment of a woman crossing the land no man could cross - and Heinberg's dialogue doesn't rely on obvious statements such as "fortunately I'm a woman" (I'm looking at you, Batwoman trailer), it simply lets the image strike us, because it is powerful enough by itself, and boy did that cause some serious goosebumps.
Speaking of dialogue... It's so terrific, so well written. The exchanges between Diana and Steve Trevor are very clever and funny, but most of all natural. All the characters are also extremely likable; Allan Heinberg's writing knows that not all of them can be given deep development, but nonetheless he gives them stories, personalities and purposes, and that - plus the charismatic performances - makes them very empathetic. The villains are not as remarkable as in some of the other DCEU films, but they didn't need to be; the movie doesn't require in-depth arcs from its villains. They have a strong presence when they're in scene and a well elaborated lore, and that's everything they need.
Contrary to the Nordic mythology depicted in the MCU, here we are talking about real gods, true deities, not superpowerful aliens that only strike a similar image - and that also brings a few narrative dangers along with it, after all, it was in greek mythological stories that the concept of Deus Ex Machina first appeared. Heinberg's screenplay, though, makes a few clever twists in that mythology to avoid easy solutions, which adds to the storytelling, the world building and the developing of the themes as well. The lore surrounding the God of War Ares, for example, is not a simple Diabolus Ex Machina as "he influences men to war and if you kill him every man goes back to being good and everything's alright", no, it's more narratively complicated and socially engaging than that.
And Gal Gadot... I'm at a loss for words. I'll confess right here that when she was first announced as Wonder Woman, I was one of the few who were very opposed to that casting. I've never been so wrong in my life, and I've never been so happy about it. She really is Wonder Woman. She's so graceful and adorable, but a major badass when she needs to be. The way she moves, the way she curiously looks at things, the way she speaks, and the way she incarnates Diana's evolving from her naive beginnings to the wise warrior... She's not only an icon, she's a true hero. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve's Superman were made for good reasons.
Chris Pine is also great, he walks perfectly in the line between funny and serious, Steve Trevor is a darling character and his chemistry with Gal is on point. Their relationship is very well constructed and becomes highly emotional by the end - there are scenes that filled my heart with joy, and others that made it ache.
The action is exciting and full of originality, and I like how Jenkins uses slow-motion differently than Zack Snyder. I know that Snyder helped her direct some of the action sequences, which is understandable since Jenkins had no experience with this type of movie, but you can tell it's not the same. In the fights themselves, there's this feel of sensibility to how these people react to Diana, and it's slightly different from the typical "regular people react to superhumans among them" trope. The cinematography is very keen on portraying the difference between Themyscira - an island of colors and natural beauty - and "jolly ol' London" - desaturated and smoggy, a scenario in which Diana's colorful armor shines in a most beautiful contrast.
And the soundtrack. Rupert Gregson-Williams made a beautiful score that brings out the best in every scene. It's heroic, very heartfelt, and loyal to the foundations of what makes superhero music so memorable. Gregson-Williams adds new themes to compose Wonder Woman's musical identity, but Hans Zimmer's main theme from BVS still lives, and it plays in some heart-pounding scenes. I love that they're dedicating that much attention to the musical continuity, because amongst Marvel's many qualities, they're doing a lousy job in that area. Wonder Woman's theme is the most catchy superhero theme in a long time, it quickly gained a lot of appreciation and by continuing on using it, Gregson-Williams collaborates to making Wonder Woman the strong cinematic icon she's setting out to be.
The irregular reception of previous DCEU movies also extols the impact of Wonder Woman, as do the distinct styles between the films. One of the DCEU's biggest virtues is that singularity of each film; be it a near disaster movie epic such as Man Of Steel, a complex deconstruction of heroic values such as Batman v Superman, an stylish chaos such as Suicide Squad or a traditional, graceful superhero film such as Wonder Woman, these movies are all in the same universe, and that very fact is an example of its richness. A lot of people will think Wonder Woman is the best DCEU movie of the lot, some will stick to BVS, others to MOS, maybe for some it's Shazam, but that's the fun of it: we can discuss this forever. Each of these movies mean different things to different people, we're way past simply labelling one as "better" and the other as "worse".
Wonder Woman, however, is not simply a movie about a very strong woman. It's an achievement for every woman. There were tons of girls dressed up as Wonder Woman in the theater, and just seeing how ecstatic they were after the movie brought me joy. There were tons of applause. It's a mark. Be that as it may, Wonder Woman will be remembered as the most impactful superhero film of its time. In 1978, Superman showed to the world how a man could fly; in 2017, Wonder Woman showed to the world how a woman can fight.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'm not really sure where to start with this so settle in for a ride. I've tried to avoid major spoilers but some of the things I've written might give away or hint at events in Endgame so please don't read this until you've seen it at the cinema.
We were left forlorn in the wilds of Wakanda after Thanos' snap in Infinity War. 50% of every living creatures on the planet, on every planet, wiped out of existence. Thanos has set off in his retirement while our heroes are reassembling. What's left of the team is trying to get back to a normal life, saving the world, saving each other. Some are moving on, some are stuck on the past, all are lost.
I wrote more notes for this than I've written for any other movie. It was so much of a problem that I condensed the original and then recondensed them into collected topics. I'm vaguely going to go in chronological order, let's do it!
We open with Hawkeye. The scene was simple and effective to help line up the change in him, but it wasn't the tone I expected for the beginning of the film. You have to start it somehow, and I don't know how I thought they would but tonally it didn't say "Marvel" to me. In the trailers we see his darker side coming through, after seeing the film I can't help but wonder if they needed to do this to him. It felt a little like they were just doing it to use for one scene. Clint is a stand-up guy, he would have been there for them regardless in this situation.
As we recap on what's happening in the wake of the snap we find Nebula and Tony attempting to return from Titan on the Guardian's ship. For me, Nebula was the best bit of the whole film. The scenes with Tony are wonderful and touching, she's able to make a connection that she's never really had before and her transformation through the film is a delight.
Something at this point that I feel I should bring up is the partnership that we witness. Tony and Nebula, Nebula and War Machine, Rocket and Thor. We're given lots of different Marvel Mash-ups with great results. Nebula, in particular, shone through in these. Watch out for her with Rhodey.
Steve, Cap, is very much in control throughout this movie, in leadership as well as of his emotions. He still has his positive outlook on life but even when it wanes he's determined. Visually they've left you no room to wonder on whether he is the first Avenger, he leads into a room and he gets a lot of shots that frame him perfectly. But he has changed... on more than one occasion I found myself going "Language, Steve!" I was unsure about his support group in the trailer and after the full scene it felt like it was just there to set up occurrences towards the end of the film. You'd be forgiven for thinking this was actually a Captain America film, it felt much more like one than Civil War did.
Before coming to Endgame one of the things I had been thinking about was how Scott was going to return from the quantum realm. What happens kind of feels like they had no idea how they were going to do it, and it was frustrating and leaves you with questions about what happened in the five years since the snap. There's also a potential horror movie spin-off teased in Scott's walk through San Francisco, he encounters a kid on a bike... classic horror movie moment in that scene.
Nat gets to flex her leadership muscles in the post-snap world trying to keep a new band of Avengers together. Still based in the Avengers complex she's coordinating with members around the world and out in space. We finally see some genuine raw emotion from her as they search for Hawkeye as he's off on his... well what is it? Redirected revenge? She's always had a trusted position with Fury and it seems like his dusting has pushed her to step up.
Carol is back after her recent debut... I still don't think we can call her Captain Marvel when no one else does. I still don't like her, I can't help it. She's cocky and she doesn't seem to have any desire to actually work with the team. If there's anything that I got from this film it's that Black Widow should have had her own film already rather than introducing Carol at the last minute. She's not really a massive feature of the film and her inclusion feels almost like they needed to a solution to a problem and she was the quickest way to fix it.
Now we get to the point where I had some major upset. In my opinion, Marvel have done wrong by Bruce/Hulk and Thor. I saw a spoiler on Twitter for Bruce that I hoped was fan-inspired, but when we get to him in the film I sat in annoyed silence as those around me murmured with excitement. As far as Thor goes, I can see why they made the choices they did with him but it felt like they just turned him into a joke, and that didn't sit right with me at all. Just one small step back from what they did and they would have nailed it, but it felt like they just went for the cheap laugh at his expense.
So it's time to talk about time travel, I think we all knew that we could expect to see it in some way or another in Endgame. Tony and Bruce obvious have a big hand in this one, and it was nice to see them acknowledging the "normal" person discussion of time travel with film references. Outside of that though they threw a lot of complicated script at it, it felt like a very random step away from how they usually deal with technical things in the universe.
From the one hour point of the movie(ish) everything starts to pick up, up until then I wasn't loving the film, and that was upsetting to me. What follows from the quantum suit walk is a lot of fun. There are a lot of nostalgic moments that brought humour and a fun layer to the older films and we get what is probably the most satisfying moment of the entire MCU.
Visually this is one of the better films in the sequence. Shots weren't overly cluttered and so busy that you couldn't see what was happening, and there were a lot more poignant visuals. There are however a few that make me think they had to be reshot because you get very specific angles that give you the back of someone's head and the audio sounds slightly off to the rest of the scene.
Two things left to specifically mention...
The women of Marvel. For so many films we had very few female heroes, certainly none that got their fair share of coverage until The Wasp, Captain Marvel and an excellent female ensemble in Black Panther. I'm all for more female characters but I think Endgame went too far. There is one scene near the end that felt more like they were worried they hadn't had enough women on screen and they really packed them in, it felt awkward rather than awesome.
Stan Lee's cameo. It wasn't the usual fun we're used to. Fleeting and forgettable. Stan deserved better, this just didn't feel right. I even briefly wondered if it was actually him.
For me, Endgame wasn't the finale that we deserved. It wasn't better than Infinity War but I don't think that it could have been because of how much it had to bring to the table. I went and saw it twice because I like to see the 3D and 2D when they come out, it was actually one of the better 3D films I've seen on a regular screen.
I probably would have given this 3 stars, while I had fun watching it I came out both times feeling kind of "meh" about it. Nebula, America's ass and the epic moment in the finale, as well as a few other amusing moments, bumped it up slightly. I sadly found that first hour rather challenging and couldn't get on board with some of the character choices that were made.
What you should do
Let's face it, you're going to watch it if you've invested time in watching all the Marvel movies and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. I'm aware I'm in a minority with my feelings about this, but not everyone can feel the same way about everything. What a world it would be if we could.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd still like an infinity stone... but I don't know which one.
We were left forlorn in the wilds of Wakanda after Thanos' snap in Infinity War. 50% of every living creatures on the planet, on every planet, wiped out of existence. Thanos has set off in his retirement while our heroes are reassembling. What's left of the team is trying to get back to a normal life, saving the world, saving each other. Some are moving on, some are stuck on the past, all are lost.
I wrote more notes for this than I've written for any other movie. It was so much of a problem that I condensed the original and then recondensed them into collected topics. I'm vaguely going to go in chronological order, let's do it!
We open with Hawkeye. The scene was simple and effective to help line up the change in him, but it wasn't the tone I expected for the beginning of the film. You have to start it somehow, and I don't know how I thought they would but tonally it didn't say "Marvel" to me. In the trailers we see his darker side coming through, after seeing the film I can't help but wonder if they needed to do this to him. It felt a little like they were just doing it to use for one scene. Clint is a stand-up guy, he would have been there for them regardless in this situation.
As we recap on what's happening in the wake of the snap we find Nebula and Tony attempting to return from Titan on the Guardian's ship. For me, Nebula was the best bit of the whole film. The scenes with Tony are wonderful and touching, she's able to make a connection that she's never really had before and her transformation through the film is a delight.
Something at this point that I feel I should bring up is the partnership that we witness. Tony and Nebula, Nebula and War Machine, Rocket and Thor. We're given lots of different Marvel Mash-ups with great results. Nebula, in particular, shone through in these. Watch out for her with Rhodey.
Steve, Cap, is very much in control throughout this movie, in leadership as well as of his emotions. He still has his positive outlook on life but even when it wanes he's determined. Visually they've left you no room to wonder on whether he is the first Avenger, he leads into a room and he gets a lot of shots that frame him perfectly. But he has changed... on more than one occasion I found myself going "Language, Steve!" I was unsure about his support group in the trailer and after the full scene it felt like it was just there to set up occurrences towards the end of the film. You'd be forgiven for thinking this was actually a Captain America film, it felt much more like one than Civil War did.
Before coming to Endgame one of the things I had been thinking about was how Scott was going to return from the quantum realm. What happens kind of feels like they had no idea how they were going to do it, and it was frustrating and leaves you with questions about what happened in the five years since the snap. There's also a potential horror movie spin-off teased in Scott's walk through San Francisco, he encounters a kid on a bike... classic horror movie moment in that scene.
Nat gets to flex her leadership muscles in the post-snap world trying to keep a new band of Avengers together. Still based in the Avengers complex she's coordinating with members around the world and out in space. We finally see some genuine raw emotion from her as they search for Hawkeye as he's off on his... well what is it? Redirected revenge? She's always had a trusted position with Fury and it seems like his dusting has pushed her to step up.
Carol is back after her recent debut... I still don't think we can call her Captain Marvel when no one else does. I still don't like her, I can't help it. She's cocky and she doesn't seem to have any desire to actually work with the team. If there's anything that I got from this film it's that Black Widow should have had her own film already rather than introducing Carol at the last minute. She's not really a massive feature of the film and her inclusion feels almost like they needed to a solution to a problem and she was the quickest way to fix it.
Now we get to the point where I had some major upset. In my opinion, Marvel have done wrong by Bruce/Hulk and Thor. I saw a spoiler on Twitter for Bruce that I hoped was fan-inspired, but when we get to him in the film I sat in annoyed silence as those around me murmured with excitement. As far as Thor goes, I can see why they made the choices they did with him but it felt like they just turned him into a joke, and that didn't sit right with me at all. Just one small step back from what they did and they would have nailed it, but it felt like they just went for the cheap laugh at his expense.
So it's time to talk about time travel, I think we all knew that we could expect to see it in some way or another in Endgame. Tony and Bruce obvious have a big hand in this one, and it was nice to see them acknowledging the "normal" person discussion of time travel with film references. Outside of that though they threw a lot of complicated script at it, it felt like a very random step away from how they usually deal with technical things in the universe.
From the one hour point of the movie(ish) everything starts to pick up, up until then I wasn't loving the film, and that was upsetting to me. What follows from the quantum suit walk is a lot of fun. There are a lot of nostalgic moments that brought humour and a fun layer to the older films and we get what is probably the most satisfying moment of the entire MCU.
Visually this is one of the better films in the sequence. Shots weren't overly cluttered and so busy that you couldn't see what was happening, and there were a lot more poignant visuals. There are however a few that make me think they had to be reshot because you get very specific angles that give you the back of someone's head and the audio sounds slightly off to the rest of the scene.
Two things left to specifically mention...
The women of Marvel. For so many films we had very few female heroes, certainly none that got their fair share of coverage until The Wasp, Captain Marvel and an excellent female ensemble in Black Panther. I'm all for more female characters but I think Endgame went too far. There is one scene near the end that felt more like they were worried they hadn't had enough women on screen and they really packed them in, it felt awkward rather than awesome.
Stan Lee's cameo. It wasn't the usual fun we're used to. Fleeting and forgettable. Stan deserved better, this just didn't feel right. I even briefly wondered if it was actually him.
For me, Endgame wasn't the finale that we deserved. It wasn't better than Infinity War but I don't think that it could have been because of how much it had to bring to the table. I went and saw it twice because I like to see the 3D and 2D when they come out, it was actually one of the better 3D films I've seen on a regular screen.
I probably would have given this 3 stars, while I had fun watching it I came out both times feeling kind of "meh" about it. Nebula, America's ass and the epic moment in the finale, as well as a few other amusing moments, bumped it up slightly. I sadly found that first hour rather challenging and couldn't get on board with some of the character choices that were made.
What you should do
Let's face it, you're going to watch it if you've invested time in watching all the Marvel movies and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. I'm aware I'm in a minority with my feelings about this, but not everyone can feel the same way about everything. What a world it would be if we could.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd still like an infinity stone... but I don't know which one.