Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Tim Burton and the flying elephant
If you had told me 15 years ago that Tim Burton would be directing a live-action adaptation of Disney’s classic, Dumbo I would’ve been overwhelmed with excitement. The director, famed for his unique sense of gothic style and visual flair has directed some of the best films ever made.
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Disney knocks it out of the park
It was 1964 when the world was introduced to a practically-perfect British nanny in Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins. Back then, Julie Andrews starred as the eponymous character alongside Dick van Dyke and David Tomlinson. It was an instant hit and became one of Disney’s most-loved feature films.
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
JT (287 KP) rated Skyfall (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
I wondered recently who my favourite Bond is? Do I enjoy the comical quips of Roger Moore or the smooth suave debonair approach of Sean Connery. But everytime I think about it, I keep coming full circle to Daniel Craig, in particularly Skyfall.
After the somewhat disappointment of Quantum of Solace Oscar winning director Sam Mendes has taken Bond 23 and given it a grittier more emotional look while paying homage to some of the past Bond classics. The opening credits are an explosive introduction as we see Bond give chase through a Turkish bazaar which includes an impressive motor bike pursuit and a brilliantly choreographed fist fight on top of a moving train.
After being shot Bond is seen falling to his certain death and the film explodes into its trademark opening credits, complete with Adele’s powerful voice, a song that really evokes everything Bond. When 007 finally returns from the grave having spent time away partaking in scorpion drinking games, post shag Heineken’s and ultimately ’enjoying death’ he comes back to find that MI6 has moved deep into subterranean London after an attack on MI6.
He’s unshaven, disheveled and is a shadow of the former agent, not even able to shoot straight or do a succession of chin-ups without collapsing. Skyfall scratches deep beneath the emotional undertones of both Bond and M as their pasts are dragged up for all to see. Judi Dench in her seventh Bond outing gets a much bigger slice of the action, she is without question the main Bond girl here. Joined by Naomie Harris and Bérénice Marlohe who both take a relative back seat.
The Bond franchise has always had a rich tradition of producing menacing and iconic villains, Bloefeld, Scaramanga and Goldfinger to name a few, but the introduction of Javier Bardem will now have a place in Bond folk-law as one of the best modern day baddies.
His entrance was perfect, with Bond tied to a chair Bardem’s Silva (himself a former agent) entered from an elevator at the far side of the room, and in one take slowly walked forward as he produced a monologue about rats in a barrel, proceeding to taunt 007 about his own past and the connections that they both have with M.
The last few films have also lacked any real gadgetry in terms of Q branch, something which after being around for so long was definitely missing. Ben Wishaw’s appearance as a much younger Q, “you’ve still got spots” points out 007, was a much needed injection as he hands out Bond his new Walter PPK and radio transmitter (they don’t go in for exploding pens anymore).
It’s simple stuff but it was great to see that character back where he belongs.
There is subtle humour throughout and light hearted moments, Bond himself throwing a few winks here and there as Roger Moore used to do so well back in the day. The action of course is another high point, believable or not it’s stunning but then this is what we have come to expect from one of the longest running franchises in film history.
The locations and cinematography were sublime, from the depths of the London underground to the Scottish highlands in the film’s pulsating climax; Skyfall brought Bond back to Britain. The scenes set in Shanghai where also exceptional, the highlight for me, the neon lit skyscraper fight in which Bond fails to hang onto the information he needs, quite literally.
Ralph Fiennes bureaucratic Mallory is another casting masterstroke, Albert Finney ads some touching moments of his own, while MI6 agent Eve who after shooting 007 by mistake and takes a back seat from active duty will no doubt please many fans with her new role.
Skyfall, of which I was not sure what on earth the title meant at the time is all the more clear in the third act. Bond chooses to revisit his child hood home and use that against Silva in a make shift home defense that even MacAulay Culkin would be proud of. It is fantastically shot and is the perfect ending to a film that has been top draw all the way through.
Some comparisons have been drawn to this and The Dark Knight in that the main characters are lost and then re-born in some way, both have a past that haunts them as well as dead parents. Mendes and the writers have taken this film down a darker route but an emotive one as well and that is credit to them, it all made sense and the story flowed well.
Skyfall is nothing short of a triumph and has given Bond fans everything they could have asked for and so much more.
After the somewhat disappointment of Quantum of Solace Oscar winning director Sam Mendes has taken Bond 23 and given it a grittier more emotional look while paying homage to some of the past Bond classics. The opening credits are an explosive introduction as we see Bond give chase through a Turkish bazaar which includes an impressive motor bike pursuit and a brilliantly choreographed fist fight on top of a moving train.
After being shot Bond is seen falling to his certain death and the film explodes into its trademark opening credits, complete with Adele’s powerful voice, a song that really evokes everything Bond. When 007 finally returns from the grave having spent time away partaking in scorpion drinking games, post shag Heineken’s and ultimately ’enjoying death’ he comes back to find that MI6 has moved deep into subterranean London after an attack on MI6.
He’s unshaven, disheveled and is a shadow of the former agent, not even able to shoot straight or do a succession of chin-ups without collapsing. Skyfall scratches deep beneath the emotional undertones of both Bond and M as their pasts are dragged up for all to see. Judi Dench in her seventh Bond outing gets a much bigger slice of the action, she is without question the main Bond girl here. Joined by Naomie Harris and Bérénice Marlohe who both take a relative back seat.
The Bond franchise has always had a rich tradition of producing menacing and iconic villains, Bloefeld, Scaramanga and Goldfinger to name a few, but the introduction of Javier Bardem will now have a place in Bond folk-law as one of the best modern day baddies.
His entrance was perfect, with Bond tied to a chair Bardem’s Silva (himself a former agent) entered from an elevator at the far side of the room, and in one take slowly walked forward as he produced a monologue about rats in a barrel, proceeding to taunt 007 about his own past and the connections that they both have with M.
The last few films have also lacked any real gadgetry in terms of Q branch, something which after being around for so long was definitely missing. Ben Wishaw’s appearance as a much younger Q, “you’ve still got spots” points out 007, was a much needed injection as he hands out Bond his new Walter PPK and radio transmitter (they don’t go in for exploding pens anymore).
It’s simple stuff but it was great to see that character back where he belongs.
There is subtle humour throughout and light hearted moments, Bond himself throwing a few winks here and there as Roger Moore used to do so well back in the day. The action of course is another high point, believable or not it’s stunning but then this is what we have come to expect from one of the longest running franchises in film history.
The locations and cinematography were sublime, from the depths of the London underground to the Scottish highlands in the film’s pulsating climax; Skyfall brought Bond back to Britain. The scenes set in Shanghai where also exceptional, the highlight for me, the neon lit skyscraper fight in which Bond fails to hang onto the information he needs, quite literally.
Ralph Fiennes bureaucratic Mallory is another casting masterstroke, Albert Finney ads some touching moments of his own, while MI6 agent Eve who after shooting 007 by mistake and takes a back seat from active duty will no doubt please many fans with her new role.
Skyfall, of which I was not sure what on earth the title meant at the time is all the more clear in the third act. Bond chooses to revisit his child hood home and use that against Silva in a make shift home defense that even MacAulay Culkin would be proud of. It is fantastically shot and is the perfect ending to a film that has been top draw all the way through.
Some comparisons have been drawn to this and The Dark Knight in that the main characters are lost and then re-born in some way, both have a past that haunts them as well as dead parents. Mendes and the writers have taken this film down a darker route but an emotive one as well and that is credit to them, it all made sense and the story flowed well.
Skyfall is nothing short of a triumph and has given Bond fans everything they could have asked for and so much more.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Six Minutes to Midnight (2021) in Movies
Apr 4, 2021 (Updated Apr 4, 2021)
Historical story (Potential for a great film) (1 more)
Judi Dench
B-grade spy caper antics (1 more)
Some ridiculous plot-points
A "39 Steps-esque" thriller that doesn't match its potential
In "Six Minutes to Midnight", it's the summer of 1939 (so we are in a parallel time-flow here with the events of "The Dig"). A private girl's school - the Augusta Victoria College in Bexhill-on-Sea - is run with loving care by the spinster Miss Rocholl (Judi Dench). But the 'finishing school' is unusual, in that all its teenage students are German. Indeed, they are the offspring of prominent Nazis.
When half-German English teacher Thomas Miller (Eddie Izzard) applies for a suddenly vacant position, he is taken on to share the teaching duties with Rocholl and Ilse (Carla Juri). But in snooping into the activities going on there, he finds mystery and danger.
Positives:
This is a fascinating premise for a movie that will appeal to an older generation, along the lines of "They don't make them like this anymore". It has elements of the 'good guy on the run' that struck parallels with "The 39 Steps" for me.
It's great that the school is all based on historical fact. Miss Rochol did indeed run the school, as a part of a plan to infiltrate British high-society with pro-Nazi sympathies ahead of an invasion. In real-life, one of the pupils was the god-daughter of Heinrich Himmler and one - Bettina von Ribbentrop - was the daughter of the German foreign minister.
After a comic "Family Guy"-style set of production logos to kick off with (for a full one and a half minutes!!), the pre-title sequence is a superb scene-setter. What exactly is going on here? A frantic scrabbling in a bookcase. A pier-end disappearance. The school badge (a genuine reproduction!) with its Union flag and Nazi Swastika insignia. The girls performing a ballet-like ritual on the beach with batons. (This looks to be a cracker, I thought).
Judi Dench. Superb as always.
Chris Seager does the cinematography, and impressively so. Most of Seager's CV has been TV work, so it must be delightful to be given the breadth of a cinema screen to capture landscapes like this.
I like the clever title: "Six Minutes to Midnight". I assumed it was intended solely to reflect the imminence of war. But it actually has another meaning entirely.
Negatives:
For me, was a highly frustrating film. All of the great credibility and atmosphere it builds up in the first 30 minutes, it then squanders by diving off into sub-Hitchcock spy capers.
Izzard becomes a 'man on the run', and doesn't seem credible at that. (I appreciate the irony of this statement given that this is the man who ran 32 marathons in 31 days for charity!) But Izzard is built for distance and not for speed, and some of the police chase scenes in the movie strain credibility to breaking point. Another actor might have been able to pull this off better.
There's a lack of continuity in the film: was it perhaps cut down from a much longer running time? At one point, Miller is a wanted murderer with his face plastered on the front pages. The next, kindly bus driver Charlie (Jim Broadbent) is unaccountably aiding him and Rochol seems to have assumed his innocence in later scenes.
Various spy caper clichés are mined to extreme - including those old classics 'swerve to avoid bullets'; 'gun shot but different gun'; and 'shot guy seems to live forever'. And there are double-agent 'twists' occurring that are utterly predictable.
A very specific continuity irritation for me was in an 'aircraft landing' scene. Markers are separated by nine paces (I went back and counted them!) yet a view from a plane shows them a 'runway-width' apart. This might have escaped scrutiny were it shown just once. But no... we have ground shot; air shot; ground shot; air shot..... repeatedly!
Summary thoughts: This was one of the cinema trailers that most appealed to me over a year ago, in those heady days in the sunlit-uplands of life before Covid-19. It's a movie that showed a great deal of promise, since the history is fascinating. And there is probably a really great TV serial in here: showing the 'alternate history' consequences of these high-society German girls penetrating British society and steering the war in a different direction (screenplay idea (C) RJ Mann!) But the potential is squandered with a non-credible spy caper bolted onto the side.
So with "Six Minutes to Midnight", Downton-director Andy Goddard has made a perfectly watchable 'rainy Sunday afternoon' film, that I enjoyed in part for its 'old-school' quirkiness. But it's frustrating that all the promise couldn't be transitioned into a more satisfying movie.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/six-minutes-to-midnight-a-39-steps-esque-thriller-but-not-quite-pulling-it-off/. Thanks).
When half-German English teacher Thomas Miller (Eddie Izzard) applies for a suddenly vacant position, he is taken on to share the teaching duties with Rocholl and Ilse (Carla Juri). But in snooping into the activities going on there, he finds mystery and danger.
Positives:
This is a fascinating premise for a movie that will appeal to an older generation, along the lines of "They don't make them like this anymore". It has elements of the 'good guy on the run' that struck parallels with "The 39 Steps" for me.
It's great that the school is all based on historical fact. Miss Rochol did indeed run the school, as a part of a plan to infiltrate British high-society with pro-Nazi sympathies ahead of an invasion. In real-life, one of the pupils was the god-daughter of Heinrich Himmler and one - Bettina von Ribbentrop - was the daughter of the German foreign minister.
After a comic "Family Guy"-style set of production logos to kick off with (for a full one and a half minutes!!), the pre-title sequence is a superb scene-setter. What exactly is going on here? A frantic scrabbling in a bookcase. A pier-end disappearance. The school badge (a genuine reproduction!) with its Union flag and Nazi Swastika insignia. The girls performing a ballet-like ritual on the beach with batons. (This looks to be a cracker, I thought).
Judi Dench. Superb as always.
Chris Seager does the cinematography, and impressively so. Most of Seager's CV has been TV work, so it must be delightful to be given the breadth of a cinema screen to capture landscapes like this.
I like the clever title: "Six Minutes to Midnight". I assumed it was intended solely to reflect the imminence of war. But it actually has another meaning entirely.
Negatives:
For me, was a highly frustrating film. All of the great credibility and atmosphere it builds up in the first 30 minutes, it then squanders by diving off into sub-Hitchcock spy capers.
Izzard becomes a 'man on the run', and doesn't seem credible at that. (I appreciate the irony of this statement given that this is the man who ran 32 marathons in 31 days for charity!) But Izzard is built for distance and not for speed, and some of the police chase scenes in the movie strain credibility to breaking point. Another actor might have been able to pull this off better.
There's a lack of continuity in the film: was it perhaps cut down from a much longer running time? At one point, Miller is a wanted murderer with his face plastered on the front pages. The next, kindly bus driver Charlie (Jim Broadbent) is unaccountably aiding him and Rochol seems to have assumed his innocence in later scenes.
Various spy caper clichés are mined to extreme - including those old classics 'swerve to avoid bullets'; 'gun shot but different gun'; and 'shot guy seems to live forever'. And there are double-agent 'twists' occurring that are utterly predictable.
A very specific continuity irritation for me was in an 'aircraft landing' scene. Markers are separated by nine paces (I went back and counted them!) yet a view from a plane shows them a 'runway-width' apart. This might have escaped scrutiny were it shown just once. But no... we have ground shot; air shot; ground shot; air shot..... repeatedly!
Summary thoughts: This was one of the cinema trailers that most appealed to me over a year ago, in those heady days in the sunlit-uplands of life before Covid-19. It's a movie that showed a great deal of promise, since the history is fascinating. And there is probably a really great TV serial in here: showing the 'alternate history' consequences of these high-society German girls penetrating British society and steering the war in a different direction (screenplay idea (C) RJ Mann!) But the potential is squandered with a non-credible spy caper bolted onto the side.
So with "Six Minutes to Midnight", Downton-director Andy Goddard has made a perfectly watchable 'rainy Sunday afternoon' film, that I enjoyed in part for its 'old-school' quirkiness. But it's frustrating that all the promise couldn't be transitioned into a more satisfying movie.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/six-minutes-to-midnight-a-39-steps-esque-thriller-but-not-quite-pulling-it-off/. Thanks).
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Soul (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
When Disney Pixar launches a big new title it comes with a lot of expectation – there are just so many titles in the back catalogue now that will forever be considered classics. Movies that raised and re-raised the bar of what animation and family film storytelling can be at the very, very best.
So, when it was announced that Soul would be shown worldwide on the excellent Disney plus channel on Christmas Day, it was something of a coup that made it The movie event of the year, as many of us would now have the shared memory of watching it post lunch, as we struggled to keep our own cosy souls and eyelids awake enough to properly enjoy it.
I must admit that my opinion of it after one watch is tinted by being very close to a complete food coma shutdown. I will need to watch it again to fully appreciate it, I think. The main thing about doing it at all was how perfect and special it felt to be doing it on Christmas Day – nothing has felt more Christmassy to me film-wise since they first aired Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on BBC1 in 1992. Such a treat with quality assured is rare indeed. The question was how good would it be in comparison to our favourites?
There were rumours from early reviews that it was more mature and adult themed than usual, and this seemed entirely true from the get go. Jazz music, a mellow vibe not racing headlong after easy laughs and the themes of existential angst and, well, death… it is quite grown up, to an extent. Not that young ones won’t enjoy it at all. It is as colourful and busy and joyous as any of them. Even if they can’t take in the concepts of the story in a deeper way, there is plenty to enjoy.
What it seems like Pixar were going for here is a film families of many generations can enjoy together; the older parents and grandparents explaining and reassuring in the deeper moments, and the young ones reminding the older ones to laugh at the silly bits! It was ever thus, but now the ambition to make it really about something significant seems achievable.
The theme of separation, loss and yes, even death is all over Pixar if you look for it. Especially with the recent Coco, which I thought was their best effort for several years. What they did with the theme of death in that one and here also is view it without fear, but as a celebration of the life that came before it, and the people that were touched by that life. It is the perennial Pixar message, that something which at first seems scary and sad is actually beautiful and wonderful if you look closer and choose to see it that way. And to their work in educating kids with that message I can only applaud in awe.
The animation itself is surprising. The “real” world being almost photo real to a jaw dropping degree, whilst the characters remain stylised. But it is the choices of simpler, somehow old fashioned styles in the before and after life sections that are striking. The semi luminous colours are also breath-taking: all calm aquamarine and soft pink, for every bright red and orange of Coco, but just as vibrant.
Pete Doctor who was responsible on this scale for Monster’s Inc, Up and Inside Out, holds the dual reigns of directing and writing expertly yet again, making things that are very hard to achieve look like cracking eggs! The voice talents of Jamie Foxx and Tina Fey do exactly what is needed in the roles without ever standing out as spectacular, as do minor roles for the likes of Graham Norton and Richard Ayoade. Spectacular is not what Soul is about, it is much more about solid qualities with deeper resonance. Personally, I never arrived at the tears in the eyes revelation moment. But that might be more about how warm and full and content I was than any criticism of something missing. There is every chance it is me that missed it.
Look, I don’t think anyone is going to be putting this amongst their top 5 Pixars any time soon, but I also can’t see anyone saying they didn’t enjoy it. The consensus seems to be “hmm, interesting, I need to think about that a while and see it again a few times”. So, for now, that is exactly what I am saying too. It may well be a classic that grows in appreciation over the years, or it may be one where you go, “nah, let’s watch Monster’s Inc. again instead”. Not sure. I’ll add a postscript right here when I have seen it a second time…
So, when it was announced that Soul would be shown worldwide on the excellent Disney plus channel on Christmas Day, it was something of a coup that made it The movie event of the year, as many of us would now have the shared memory of watching it post lunch, as we struggled to keep our own cosy souls and eyelids awake enough to properly enjoy it.
I must admit that my opinion of it after one watch is tinted by being very close to a complete food coma shutdown. I will need to watch it again to fully appreciate it, I think. The main thing about doing it at all was how perfect and special it felt to be doing it on Christmas Day – nothing has felt more Christmassy to me film-wise since they first aired Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on BBC1 in 1992. Such a treat with quality assured is rare indeed. The question was how good would it be in comparison to our favourites?
There were rumours from early reviews that it was more mature and adult themed than usual, and this seemed entirely true from the get go. Jazz music, a mellow vibe not racing headlong after easy laughs and the themes of existential angst and, well, death… it is quite grown up, to an extent. Not that young ones won’t enjoy it at all. It is as colourful and busy and joyous as any of them. Even if they can’t take in the concepts of the story in a deeper way, there is plenty to enjoy.
What it seems like Pixar were going for here is a film families of many generations can enjoy together; the older parents and grandparents explaining and reassuring in the deeper moments, and the young ones reminding the older ones to laugh at the silly bits! It was ever thus, but now the ambition to make it really about something significant seems achievable.
The theme of separation, loss and yes, even death is all over Pixar if you look for it. Especially with the recent Coco, which I thought was their best effort for several years. What they did with the theme of death in that one and here also is view it without fear, but as a celebration of the life that came before it, and the people that were touched by that life. It is the perennial Pixar message, that something which at first seems scary and sad is actually beautiful and wonderful if you look closer and choose to see it that way. And to their work in educating kids with that message I can only applaud in awe.
The animation itself is surprising. The “real” world being almost photo real to a jaw dropping degree, whilst the characters remain stylised. But it is the choices of simpler, somehow old fashioned styles in the before and after life sections that are striking. The semi luminous colours are also breath-taking: all calm aquamarine and soft pink, for every bright red and orange of Coco, but just as vibrant.
Pete Doctor who was responsible on this scale for Monster’s Inc, Up and Inside Out, holds the dual reigns of directing and writing expertly yet again, making things that are very hard to achieve look like cracking eggs! The voice talents of Jamie Foxx and Tina Fey do exactly what is needed in the roles without ever standing out as spectacular, as do minor roles for the likes of Graham Norton and Richard Ayoade. Spectacular is not what Soul is about, it is much more about solid qualities with deeper resonance. Personally, I never arrived at the tears in the eyes revelation moment. But that might be more about how warm and full and content I was than any criticism of something missing. There is every chance it is me that missed it.
Look, I don’t think anyone is going to be putting this amongst their top 5 Pixars any time soon, but I also can’t see anyone saying they didn’t enjoy it. The consensus seems to be “hmm, interesting, I need to think about that a while and see it again a few times”. So, for now, that is exactly what I am saying too. It may well be a classic that grows in appreciation over the years, or it may be one where you go, “nah, let’s watch Monster’s Inc. again instead”. Not sure. I’ll add a postscript right here when I have seen it a second time…
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
Married into a life with the mob, three women living in Hell’s Kitchen, New York City in the late ‘70s find themselves trapped in their husband’s shadows in Andrea Berloff’s debut film, The Kitchen. Based on a 2014 DC Comics graphic novel by the same name, the film focuses on these three female friends facing the aftermath of their husband’s botched crime and subsequent imprisonment. Their Italian crime family promised to take care of them while their spouses are locked away, but their measly support simply isn’t enough when they’ve got mouths to feed and bills to pay. Tired of being weak and dependent, the ladies band together to take control of their situation by trying to take over the mob.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Quiet Place (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“There’s a kind of hush, all over the world tonight”.
What a masterpiece this is! The most novel, the most tense, the most exhilarating, the most edge-of-your-seat Indie horror movie I could hope to see this year.
It’s 2020 and 89 days after “it” happens, the world is a very different place. Making any noise at all becomes a death sentence…. that bad cold could kill you and nothing seems to be able to prevent mankind from being annihilated one sneeze at a time.
In what could be a nice “Cloverfield”-style series, the action here focuses in on the resourceful Abbott family: the father Lee (John Krasinski, “Away We Go”) is handy with electronics and back-woods skills; the mother Evelyn (Emily Blunt, “The Girl on the Train“; “Edge of Tomorrow“) has medical training. So they are well suited then to take care of their offspring: the profoundly deaf Regan (Millicent Simmonds); Marcus (Noah Jupe); and their youngest Beau (a cute Cade Woodward). It’s a battle of brains against vicious, relentless and malevolent alien brawn: how far will Lee and Evelyn go to keep their family safe?
Man, this is a tense film! It doesn’t pull its punches from the get-go and thereafter there is an air of brooding and ever-building menace that gets right under your skin. This is certainly not helped by the fact that there is a ticking clock of an oncoming ‘event’ – no spoilers here – to worry about. As incessantly and inevitably as the rising tide in “The Shallows” a clock ticks down. Thank heavens then that the ‘event’ and the outcome of that ‘event’ are both traditionally such quiet affairs!
While all of the buzz at the moment is on the 80’s Easter Eggs in “Ready Player One”, here is a movie packed with delights for movie lovers. There are recognisable elements here from such classics as “The Road”, “Signs”, “Witness”, “Alien”, “Jurassic Park”, “Jaws”…. even (traumatically) “Home Alone”! So is it then just a rag-bag collection of stolen moments from other films? No – not at all. This stands tall and proud as a master work in its own right, the standout and unique quality of the movie being its use (or rather absence) of sound… something that works so magnificently as a concept in a movie-theatre.
I was lucky enough in the late September of 1979 to see (at 10 am in the morning as I remember!) in the Odeon Leicester Square in London, the first ever UK (and probably worldwide) showing of a little film called “Alien”. The cinema was pretty empty, but I have never sat through such an electric viewing. This had some of the same aura about it: a hushed audience, totally gripped. (I agree with Simon Mayo and Ali Plumb on this though that all snacks, and especially popcorn in scrapy SCRAPY cardboard boxes, should be banned from these screenings… I had to physically move seats away a noisy muncher as the film started!). But for sure, distractions accepted, this is a classic communal movie experience and so is a movie you should most DEFINITELY see in the cinema.
If there is one Oscar for February 2019 that I think should already be a shoe-in for a nomination, if not a win, it is the sound team led by Erik Aadahl and Ethan Van der Ryn: breathtakingly spectacular. This is assisted enormously by the musical score of Marco Beltrami (“Logan“, “The Shallows“) which helps augment and annotate the action jump-scares brilliantly.
Another critical member of the crew for a film like this is the editor, and here Christopher Tellefsen (“Joy“) delivers the goods with tight and effective execution of those cuts (the film sort!) that made me vertically leave my seat at least a couple of times.
Real life couple Krasinski and Blunt share such obvious and tender chemistry that it is impossible to not get emotionally involved. A shared iPhone listening moment, as a lull in the action, is very moving. Millicent Simmonds, who is actually deaf from childhood in an inspired piece of storytelling/casting, is also an acting force to be reckoned with: her only other movie is last year’s “Wonderstruck” that I have yet to see.
Writers Bryan Woods and Scott Beck (with contribution to the screenplay from Krasinski) also deserve praise for an intelligent and highly satisfying plot that never fails to disappoint to the last drop. Every detail, down to the painted footsteps on the un-squeaky floorboards, is just pitch-perfect. It’s also a film that very wisely doesn’t outstay its welcome: 90 minutes of such adrenaline is almost too much for anyone to stand! Krasinski as director keeps everything deliciously tight during that running time with no time to breath, particularly in the frenetic final reel.
I’ve gushed enough. This is a must see for sci-fi and horror fans of all ages. And with a “BvS quotient” of just 6.8%, it’s enormously good value for money. Go see it!
It’s 2020 and 89 days after “it” happens, the world is a very different place. Making any noise at all becomes a death sentence…. that bad cold could kill you and nothing seems to be able to prevent mankind from being annihilated one sneeze at a time.
In what could be a nice “Cloverfield”-style series, the action here focuses in on the resourceful Abbott family: the father Lee (John Krasinski, “Away We Go”) is handy with electronics and back-woods skills; the mother Evelyn (Emily Blunt, “The Girl on the Train“; “Edge of Tomorrow“) has medical training. So they are well suited then to take care of their offspring: the profoundly deaf Regan (Millicent Simmonds); Marcus (Noah Jupe); and their youngest Beau (a cute Cade Woodward). It’s a battle of brains against vicious, relentless and malevolent alien brawn: how far will Lee and Evelyn go to keep their family safe?
Man, this is a tense film! It doesn’t pull its punches from the get-go and thereafter there is an air of brooding and ever-building menace that gets right under your skin. This is certainly not helped by the fact that there is a ticking clock of an oncoming ‘event’ – no spoilers here – to worry about. As incessantly and inevitably as the rising tide in “The Shallows” a clock ticks down. Thank heavens then that the ‘event’ and the outcome of that ‘event’ are both traditionally such quiet affairs!
While all of the buzz at the moment is on the 80’s Easter Eggs in “Ready Player One”, here is a movie packed with delights for movie lovers. There are recognisable elements here from such classics as “The Road”, “Signs”, “Witness”, “Alien”, “Jurassic Park”, “Jaws”…. even (traumatically) “Home Alone”! So is it then just a rag-bag collection of stolen moments from other films? No – not at all. This stands tall and proud as a master work in its own right, the standout and unique quality of the movie being its use (or rather absence) of sound… something that works so magnificently as a concept in a movie-theatre.
I was lucky enough in the late September of 1979 to see (at 10 am in the morning as I remember!) in the Odeon Leicester Square in London, the first ever UK (and probably worldwide) showing of a little film called “Alien”. The cinema was pretty empty, but I have never sat through such an electric viewing. This had some of the same aura about it: a hushed audience, totally gripped. (I agree with Simon Mayo and Ali Plumb on this though that all snacks, and especially popcorn in scrapy SCRAPY cardboard boxes, should be banned from these screenings… I had to physically move seats away a noisy muncher as the film started!). But for sure, distractions accepted, this is a classic communal movie experience and so is a movie you should most DEFINITELY see in the cinema.
If there is one Oscar for February 2019 that I think should already be a shoe-in for a nomination, if not a win, it is the sound team led by Erik Aadahl and Ethan Van der Ryn: breathtakingly spectacular. This is assisted enormously by the musical score of Marco Beltrami (“Logan“, “The Shallows“) which helps augment and annotate the action jump-scares brilliantly.
Another critical member of the crew for a film like this is the editor, and here Christopher Tellefsen (“Joy“) delivers the goods with tight and effective execution of those cuts (the film sort!) that made me vertically leave my seat at least a couple of times.
Real life couple Krasinski and Blunt share such obvious and tender chemistry that it is impossible to not get emotionally involved. A shared iPhone listening moment, as a lull in the action, is very moving. Millicent Simmonds, who is actually deaf from childhood in an inspired piece of storytelling/casting, is also an acting force to be reckoned with: her only other movie is last year’s “Wonderstruck” that I have yet to see.
Writers Bryan Woods and Scott Beck (with contribution to the screenplay from Krasinski) also deserve praise for an intelligent and highly satisfying plot that never fails to disappoint to the last drop. Every detail, down to the painted footsteps on the un-squeaky floorboards, is just pitch-perfect. It’s also a film that very wisely doesn’t outstay its welcome: 90 minutes of such adrenaline is almost too much for anyone to stand! Krasinski as director keeps everything deliciously tight during that running time with no time to breath, particularly in the frenetic final reel.
I’ve gushed enough. This is a must see for sci-fi and horror fans of all ages. And with a “BvS quotient” of just 6.8%, it’s enormously good value for money. Go see it!
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aliens (1986) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Aliens starts when Ripley (Weaver) is finally rescued from her hyper sleep, only to find out that she has been sleeping for centuries, questioned for her action on the spacecraft she learns that the same planet LV-426 has been colonised with no problems from any alien species. We get to see how the colony is building on the planet which includes us watching Newt (Henn) and her family being the ones to find the alien ship.
The company representative Burke (Reiser) looks to recruit Ripley into helping them once the company loses connect with the colony, this time armed with marines led by Lieutenant Gorman (Hope). The elite unit including Corporal Hicks (Biehn), Private Hudson (Paxton), Private Vasquez (Goldstein) and Private Drake (Rolston) to mention a few is armed to the teeth ready for any combat needed, but it is the android Bishop (Henriksen) that cause Ripley the worries especially after what happened last time she was on a mission with one.
Once at the colony the soldiers find the place abandoned at first until they find Newt only to learn the truth about what happened at the base. The unit find themselves under attack from multiply xenomorphs and only Ripley knows how to fight them off.
Aliens is the sequel to one of the greatest horror movies that actually takes the film in a different direction by adding action element. This doesn’t take away anything because if the sequel had just been on one ship with limited weapons it simply would have been a remake feeling, this story feels fresh because we already know the basics of what our heroes are up against we just needed to learn how they will deal with them this time. When it comes to the story it once again is simple soldiers versus aliens in a battle to survive which all works perfectly for this classic 30 years later.
Actor Review
Sigourney Weaver: Ripley is the lone survivor from the events of the first film, she has been in hyper sleep for years. She is charged for her actions as no evidence of any alien life form is discovered in the wreck, dealing with all the side effects we get to see how she is getting on with her life again. All this changes when the company that blamed her turned to her for help on the same planet that we first met a xenomorph. When things go wrong she takes charge of the situation while trying to protect a little girl. Sigourney was nominated for an Oscar for this performance and it would hard not to praise her brilliant performance.ripley
Carrie Henn: Newt is the little girl that was living on the colony before the attack, she is also the lone survivor once the soldiers turn up to deal with the situation. She has survived by hiding and offers the soldiers much needed advice on where to survive. Carrie is great in this role for such a young actress at the time.
Michael Biehn: Corporal Hicks has to take charge of the soldiers once his seniors become incapacitated. He will listen to Ripley and make the right decisions when it comes to fighting the xenomorphs. Michael is great in this role where he actually plays the sensible soldier.
Lance Henriksen: Bishop is the android on the mission, he is instantly disliked by Ripley but this time we only see good from the android who is willing to risk his own life to save the humans. Lance is great as this android keeping the emotionless expression throughout.
Support Cast: Aliens has a supporting cast that is mostly the soldiers who are generic in their own way along with the company man that also works for this film very well.
Director Review: James Cameron – James is a director that always makes classics and this could well be his best.
Action: Aliens is filled with combat driven action which comes off very nicely in the confined spaces.
Horror: Aliens is still filled with horror of isolation on the planet being hunted down by an alien enemy.
Sci-Fi: Aliens puts our characters in space and a new planet ticking off all of the sci-fi elements to make this an action sci-fi film.
Settings: Aliens creates a larger isolation idea with the characters being trapped on a base rather than a ship with no escape from the enemy.
Special Effects: Aliens has stunning effects that still stand the test of time.xena
Suggestion: Aliens is one I do feel everyone should have watched at least once in a lifetime. (Watch)
Best Part: First meeting the aliens.
Worst Part: Depends which cut you watch, the shorter cut takes away a lot of back story.
Action Scene Of The Film: Final fight.
Favourite Quote: Ripley ‘Get away from her you bitch’
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Yes
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won Two Oscars for Best Sound Effects and Visual Effects.
Box Office: $85 Million
Budget: $ 18.5 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 34 Minutes
Tagline: There are some places in the universe you don’t go alone.
Trivia: The knife trick scene was not in the original shooting script. According to Lance Henriksen, the adding of Hudson’s hand to the knife trick was discussed with almost everyone, except Bill Paxton.
Overall: Stunning sci-fi action horror that really comes off as the true classic
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/25/aliens-1986/
The company representative Burke (Reiser) looks to recruit Ripley into helping them once the company loses connect with the colony, this time armed with marines led by Lieutenant Gorman (Hope). The elite unit including Corporal Hicks (Biehn), Private Hudson (Paxton), Private Vasquez (Goldstein) and Private Drake (Rolston) to mention a few is armed to the teeth ready for any combat needed, but it is the android Bishop (Henriksen) that cause Ripley the worries especially after what happened last time she was on a mission with one.
Once at the colony the soldiers find the place abandoned at first until they find Newt only to learn the truth about what happened at the base. The unit find themselves under attack from multiply xenomorphs and only Ripley knows how to fight them off.
Aliens is the sequel to one of the greatest horror movies that actually takes the film in a different direction by adding action element. This doesn’t take away anything because if the sequel had just been on one ship with limited weapons it simply would have been a remake feeling, this story feels fresh because we already know the basics of what our heroes are up against we just needed to learn how they will deal with them this time. When it comes to the story it once again is simple soldiers versus aliens in a battle to survive which all works perfectly for this classic 30 years later.
Actor Review
Sigourney Weaver: Ripley is the lone survivor from the events of the first film, she has been in hyper sleep for years. She is charged for her actions as no evidence of any alien life form is discovered in the wreck, dealing with all the side effects we get to see how she is getting on with her life again. All this changes when the company that blamed her turned to her for help on the same planet that we first met a xenomorph. When things go wrong she takes charge of the situation while trying to protect a little girl. Sigourney was nominated for an Oscar for this performance and it would hard not to praise her brilliant performance.ripley
Carrie Henn: Newt is the little girl that was living on the colony before the attack, she is also the lone survivor once the soldiers turn up to deal with the situation. She has survived by hiding and offers the soldiers much needed advice on where to survive. Carrie is great in this role for such a young actress at the time.
Michael Biehn: Corporal Hicks has to take charge of the soldiers once his seniors become incapacitated. He will listen to Ripley and make the right decisions when it comes to fighting the xenomorphs. Michael is great in this role where he actually plays the sensible soldier.
Lance Henriksen: Bishop is the android on the mission, he is instantly disliked by Ripley but this time we only see good from the android who is willing to risk his own life to save the humans. Lance is great as this android keeping the emotionless expression throughout.
Support Cast: Aliens has a supporting cast that is mostly the soldiers who are generic in their own way along with the company man that also works for this film very well.
Director Review: James Cameron – James is a director that always makes classics and this could well be his best.
Action: Aliens is filled with combat driven action which comes off very nicely in the confined spaces.
Horror: Aliens is still filled with horror of isolation on the planet being hunted down by an alien enemy.
Sci-Fi: Aliens puts our characters in space and a new planet ticking off all of the sci-fi elements to make this an action sci-fi film.
Settings: Aliens creates a larger isolation idea with the characters being trapped on a base rather than a ship with no escape from the enemy.
Special Effects: Aliens has stunning effects that still stand the test of time.xena
Suggestion: Aliens is one I do feel everyone should have watched at least once in a lifetime. (Watch)
Best Part: First meeting the aliens.
Worst Part: Depends which cut you watch, the shorter cut takes away a lot of back story.
Action Scene Of The Film: Final fight.
Favourite Quote: Ripley ‘Get away from her you bitch’
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Yes
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won Two Oscars for Best Sound Effects and Visual Effects.
Box Office: $85 Million
Budget: $ 18.5 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 34 Minutes
Tagline: There are some places in the universe you don’t go alone.
Trivia: The knife trick scene was not in the original shooting script. According to Lance Henriksen, the adding of Hudson’s hand to the knife trick was discussed with almost everyone, except Bill Paxton.
Overall: Stunning sci-fi action horror that really comes off as the true classic
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/25/aliens-1986/
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated To Kill a Mockingbird in Books
Jan 2, 2019
Well, February is definitely the month for discovering classics I’ve missed! For some reason, I’d always classed To Kill a Mockingbird in amongst the Agatha Christie genre of murder mysteries – not that I’ve read those either – and didn’t know enough about it for it to have piqued my interest. Now I’ve read it though, I can see what all the fuss is about, and it’s not surprising that, despite being published in 1960, it was still the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/aug/09/best-selling-books-all-time-fifty-shades-grey-compare">65th best-selling book of all time</a> in 2012. Beware of spoilers!
The story is set in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and is written from the perspective of Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, who is between six and eight years old as the story progresses. The start of the book does an effective job of introducing us to all the characters. Scout lives with her widowed father, Atticus, a lawyer, her brother Jem (who is 4 years older than her) and Calpurnia, a black woman who acts as a type of mother figure. A friend, Dill, also joins them in the summer. The three children are intrigued by Arthur ‘Boo’ Radley, who lives in the house on the corner but is never seen outside. I really enjoyed this part of the story; it set the scene brilliantly, as well as helping me reminisce about my own childhood. Even if there is no ‘haunted’ house, children will always make one – at least, my brother and I did! With the limitless amounts of imagination children have, there will always be adventures to be had and ‘monsters’ to escape from. There was one particular house, when we were around the same age as Jem and Scout, where they had a doorbell you pulled, like a cord. My brother Josh said it was a doorbell that made you scream every time you pulled it, so we obviously had great fun in pulling it, screaming, and running away. If by some fluke the person living there is reading this, I’m really sorry, but it still makes me laugh! There was also every Christmas, when we went carol singing. We had decided that the houses beyond the wood were richer than the others, and every year would link arms, lighting matches to try and find our way in the dark and telling ghost stories the whole time.
Once everything has been established, the book moves on to a case Atticus is defending. A black man, Tom, has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell, part of a trashy white family with very poor education and even less money. This is where the casual prejudice of the time is evident – Jem and Scout have to put up with people calling their family a “nigger-lover” (sorry if that language offends, it is a direct quote and I mean no harm); Atticus faces repercussions for his whole-hearted attempt to save Tom; and many of the Maycomb women look down on the black community. However, there’s still a touch of hope – the way Atticus defends Tom’s case makes everybody think, a great feat in the setting where black and white people are in completely different classes. In this part of the story, I really looked up to Atticus, in his seemingly-infinite wisdom.
In the final part of the story, Jem and Scout finally get to meet Boo Radley, and it is here that the title of the book becomes apparent. In the middle of the book, after Jem and Scout get air-rifles, it is said:
<blockquote>When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”</blockquote>
Obviously, not knowing what was coming, I thought the story must eventually be about the children shooting a mockingbird. The last page of the book, though, I realised that it was a lot more subtle and symbolic than that. The mockingjay is Boo Radley, the man who gives when he can and causes no harm.
I really wish I’d read this story as a child, to see what sort of perspective I’d have had back then. Reading as an adult means that, while Scout was a brilliant perspective, I was almost reading as an outsider. I could see her maturing, slowly fitting the pieces together to start acting like an adult, but at the same time it was an undeniably adult reading. I really really enjoyed the book, but I have a feeling it’s one of those multi-faceted ones where you read something different every time. I can’t help thinking that reading it as a child would have been a lot more powerful.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
The story is set in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and is written from the perspective of Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, who is between six and eight years old as the story progresses. The start of the book does an effective job of introducing us to all the characters. Scout lives with her widowed father, Atticus, a lawyer, her brother Jem (who is 4 years older than her) and Calpurnia, a black woman who acts as a type of mother figure. A friend, Dill, also joins them in the summer. The three children are intrigued by Arthur ‘Boo’ Radley, who lives in the house on the corner but is never seen outside. I really enjoyed this part of the story; it set the scene brilliantly, as well as helping me reminisce about my own childhood. Even if there is no ‘haunted’ house, children will always make one – at least, my brother and I did! With the limitless amounts of imagination children have, there will always be adventures to be had and ‘monsters’ to escape from. There was one particular house, when we were around the same age as Jem and Scout, where they had a doorbell you pulled, like a cord. My brother Josh said it was a doorbell that made you scream every time you pulled it, so we obviously had great fun in pulling it, screaming, and running away. If by some fluke the person living there is reading this, I’m really sorry, but it still makes me laugh! There was also every Christmas, when we went carol singing. We had decided that the houses beyond the wood were richer than the others, and every year would link arms, lighting matches to try and find our way in the dark and telling ghost stories the whole time.
Once everything has been established, the book moves on to a case Atticus is defending. A black man, Tom, has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell, part of a trashy white family with very poor education and even less money. This is where the casual prejudice of the time is evident – Jem and Scout have to put up with people calling their family a “nigger-lover” (sorry if that language offends, it is a direct quote and I mean no harm); Atticus faces repercussions for his whole-hearted attempt to save Tom; and many of the Maycomb women look down on the black community. However, there’s still a touch of hope – the way Atticus defends Tom’s case makes everybody think, a great feat in the setting where black and white people are in completely different classes. In this part of the story, I really looked up to Atticus, in his seemingly-infinite wisdom.
In the final part of the story, Jem and Scout finally get to meet Boo Radley, and it is here that the title of the book becomes apparent. In the middle of the book, after Jem and Scout get air-rifles, it is said:
<blockquote>When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”</blockquote>
Obviously, not knowing what was coming, I thought the story must eventually be about the children shooting a mockingbird. The last page of the book, though, I realised that it was a lot more subtle and symbolic than that. The mockingjay is Boo Radley, the man who gives when he can and causes no harm.
I really wish I’d read this story as a child, to see what sort of perspective I’d have had back then. Reading as an adult means that, while Scout was a brilliant perspective, I was almost reading as an outsider. I could see her maturing, slowly fitting the pieces together to start acting like an adult, but at the same time it was an undeniably adult reading. I really really enjoyed the book, but I have a feeling it’s one of those multi-faceted ones where you read something different every time. I can’t help thinking that reading it as a child would have been a lot more powerful.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Soul (2020) in Movies
Dec 30, 2020
Soul is Pixar at its most cerebral
In the last few days I've seen Pixar's latest animation - "Soul" - described by various reviewers as a cross between "Inside Out", "Coco", "La La Land" and "Whiplash". I'll add to that some older movies with more obvious parallels with the story: 1946's "A Matter of Life and Death" with David Niven; 1941's "Here Comes Mr Jordan" with Robert Montgomery and its 1978 remake - a personal favourite of mine - "Heaven Can Wait" with Warren Beatty. For these all tell the story of someone plucked from the world a tad too early.
In "Soul", Joe (Jamie Foxx) is a talented jazz pianist always dreaming of getting to be a big time session musician. He is stuck though in a worthwhile but unappreciated job as a high school music teacher. But his luck is - temporarily - about to change when an old successful student (nice touch) recommends him to provide backing to the fearsome jazz star Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett).
Just as things seem to going his way, an open manhole cover has other ideas, and Joe falls to his 'death'. Feeling his soul has exited the world too early, and just before he gets his big shot, Joe's spirit struggles to return to the world with the help of reluctant soul/recruit "22" (Tina Fey).
Pete Docter seems to have done it again with "Soul". The man behind Pixar's hugely successful "Up" and "Inside Out" has the magic touch with these animated classics. He's had more than his share of Oscar success. (Although having gone straight to streaming on Disney+, does it qualify for the Oscars this year? Or have they relaxed the rules?) Assuming it is eligible, you'd be a brave man to bet against "Soul" winning Best Animated Feature this year.
For there are some sequences of this movie that are breathtakingly effective. The fall of Joe from the "stairway to the great beyond" to the pre-life domain (as shown in the trailer) is a masterpiece of graphic design. (And do I detect in there a tribute to the "stargate" in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?) What makes these sequences distinctive is not the afterlife soul's or the "great before" souls, who resemble blue variants of Casper. It's the 'counsellors' of the realms. They are surreally drawn Picasso-style in 2D and - although easy to draw for preschooler's with a crayon - might be a bit of a stretch for them to relate to.
But will the kids get it? I know that my 6-year old grandson enjoyed watching it. But ultimately, this is principally a Pixar film squarely targeted at adults to enjoy. Indeed, the themes of death and afterlife might be disturbing for younger children (as in "Coco"). They will certainly struggle to understand the land of lost souls, where those obsessed with their work or hobbies (metal detecting! LOL!) are almost beyond reach. And surely the message of 'enjoying the everyday here and now' rather than getting too wrapped up in career or life goals will only be relatable to adults.
"Soul" is brim-full with Pixar quirkiness. As per normal, the movie has a lot of detail that will need multiple watches. And I can confirm that the pause button helps! For example, "22" has been an earth-apprentice for so many millennia that he has had just about every mentor who's ever passed through. His 'den' is wallpapered with "Hello, My Name is ...." badges, and a pause at that point reveals mentors as varied as Gandhi, Aretha Franklin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking! And in the end titles, the usual list of babies born during production are "Recent You Seminar graduates"!
The movie also features two of the most distinctive voices from UK television. Graham Norton plays Moonwind: a sign-spinning hippy and lost-soul-sea piratical captain (I've honestly not been taking drugs). And Richard Ayoade, a UK TV regular but familiar to US audiences from his role in "The IT Crowd", plays Counsellor Jerry (well, one of them!). Alice Braga, as another Counsellor Jerry and most recently seen as the doctor in "The New Mutants", is another familiar voice
For once, Michael Giacchino doesn't get the scoring gig. Instead, this went to the "Nine Inch Nails" partnership of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. (The soundtrack for "Mank" was their most recent work). The music is perhaps not as immediately accessible as some of the previous Pixar scores. But I think will be a 'grower'.
I have a "but" in my review. I sobbed like a young child during parts of "Up". And similarly, I was a mess as 'Bing Bong' faded away in "Inside Out". And yet here, my tear ducts remained stubbornly unchallenged. Perhaps this is a personal thing, and others were a soggy mess after this movie. But, for me, it simply didn't connect with me at the same raw emotional level that Docter's other work (and indeed other Pixar movies) have done. So, for that reason (only), I'm going to hold off my highest rating.
It's highly recommended since, notwithstanding this, it's a magnificent effort. (At the 11th hour, it made my "Number 7" slot in my Top 10 of 2020). It's also worth noting that it's mildly groundbreaking in being the first Pixar movie with a black leading character.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the full review in One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/30/soul-is-pixar-at-its-most-cerebral/).
In "Soul", Joe (Jamie Foxx) is a talented jazz pianist always dreaming of getting to be a big time session musician. He is stuck though in a worthwhile but unappreciated job as a high school music teacher. But his luck is - temporarily - about to change when an old successful student (nice touch) recommends him to provide backing to the fearsome jazz star Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett).
Just as things seem to going his way, an open manhole cover has other ideas, and Joe falls to his 'death'. Feeling his soul has exited the world too early, and just before he gets his big shot, Joe's spirit struggles to return to the world with the help of reluctant soul/recruit "22" (Tina Fey).
Pete Docter seems to have done it again with "Soul". The man behind Pixar's hugely successful "Up" and "Inside Out" has the magic touch with these animated classics. He's had more than his share of Oscar success. (Although having gone straight to streaming on Disney+, does it qualify for the Oscars this year? Or have they relaxed the rules?) Assuming it is eligible, you'd be a brave man to bet against "Soul" winning Best Animated Feature this year.
For there are some sequences of this movie that are breathtakingly effective. The fall of Joe from the "stairway to the great beyond" to the pre-life domain (as shown in the trailer) is a masterpiece of graphic design. (And do I detect in there a tribute to the "stargate" in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?) What makes these sequences distinctive is not the afterlife soul's or the "great before" souls, who resemble blue variants of Casper. It's the 'counsellors' of the realms. They are surreally drawn Picasso-style in 2D and - although easy to draw for preschooler's with a crayon - might be a bit of a stretch for them to relate to.
But will the kids get it? I know that my 6-year old grandson enjoyed watching it. But ultimately, this is principally a Pixar film squarely targeted at adults to enjoy. Indeed, the themes of death and afterlife might be disturbing for younger children (as in "Coco"). They will certainly struggle to understand the land of lost souls, where those obsessed with their work or hobbies (metal detecting! LOL!) are almost beyond reach. And surely the message of 'enjoying the everyday here and now' rather than getting too wrapped up in career or life goals will only be relatable to adults.
"Soul" is brim-full with Pixar quirkiness. As per normal, the movie has a lot of detail that will need multiple watches. And I can confirm that the pause button helps! For example, "22" has been an earth-apprentice for so many millennia that he has had just about every mentor who's ever passed through. His 'den' is wallpapered with "Hello, My Name is ...." badges, and a pause at that point reveals mentors as varied as Gandhi, Aretha Franklin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking! And in the end titles, the usual list of babies born during production are "Recent You Seminar graduates"!
The movie also features two of the most distinctive voices from UK television. Graham Norton plays Moonwind: a sign-spinning hippy and lost-soul-sea piratical captain (I've honestly not been taking drugs). And Richard Ayoade, a UK TV regular but familiar to US audiences from his role in "The IT Crowd", plays Counsellor Jerry (well, one of them!). Alice Braga, as another Counsellor Jerry and most recently seen as the doctor in "The New Mutants", is another familiar voice
For once, Michael Giacchino doesn't get the scoring gig. Instead, this went to the "Nine Inch Nails" partnership of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. (The soundtrack for "Mank" was their most recent work). The music is perhaps not as immediately accessible as some of the previous Pixar scores. But I think will be a 'grower'.
I have a "but" in my review. I sobbed like a young child during parts of "Up". And similarly, I was a mess as 'Bing Bong' faded away in "Inside Out". And yet here, my tear ducts remained stubbornly unchallenged. Perhaps this is a personal thing, and others were a soggy mess after this movie. But, for me, it simply didn't connect with me at the same raw emotional level that Docter's other work (and indeed other Pixar movies) have done. So, for that reason (only), I'm going to hold off my highest rating.
It's highly recommended since, notwithstanding this, it's a magnificent effort. (At the 11th hour, it made my "Number 7" slot in my Top 10 of 2020). It's also worth noting that it's mildly groundbreaking in being the first Pixar movie with a black leading character.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the full review in One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/30/soul-is-pixar-at-its-most-cerebral/).
