Search
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated The Beguiled in Books
Jun 5, 2019
“A classic slice of Southern Gothic, shot through with psychological suspense, which is the basis for Sofia Coppola’s (winner of Best Director at Cannes) 2017 film of the same name starring Nicola Kidman, Colin Farrell and Kirsten Dunst”. Source: wiki/The_Beguiled_(2017_film).
The book was originally written with the title A Painted Devil and some of you eagle-eyed readers and film fanatics may also remember this was a film starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page in the ’70s. The maid in the latter film and this 1966 novel, was black and there was also another bi-racial character, too. However, in the new film, mentioned above, this bi-racial character was played by Kirsten Dunst. This totally ruined the whole point of the book that the black woman was really a slave in their household and the bi-racial woman (who was a free woman) could not seem to see that she herself was not truly white. And that, dear readers, is a very relevant part of the original book, why change it? (Rolls eyes). Is it so wrong to portray this black woman exactly how the author intended her to be? The way I see it, what she did in that house was her way of surviving. It’s an integral part of the story. Why hide it?
After all, if you look at the underage sex and the way the main male character acts by taking advantage of his position in a household full of young girls who are basically shut away from society, should he also be seen as wrong? These young girls are easy prey, but some, are also very willing to learn… Incidentally, I must say the heat and sexual tension within the book is superbly done.
I found parts of the way this was written to be a little repetitive and confusing in style, despite this, it was still a great story. It’s only told from the girls’ perspective, which in many ways adds to this atmospheric, hothouse of lies and deceit the further into the story you delve.
The Beguiled is chock full with a Gothic sense of foreboding and unease, set against a backdrop of the Civil War, which made for some serious, ghostly tension. Who is this injured solider who turns up on their doorstep? How can these girls protect themselves from this seductive man when they have no idea what life is like outside the four walls of the house they live in?
If you read right to the end you’ll find out the brilliant twist of fate this story has in store for you. A devious surprise!
The book was originally written with the title A Painted Devil and some of you eagle-eyed readers and film fanatics may also remember this was a film starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page in the ’70s. The maid in the latter film and this 1966 novel, was black and there was also another bi-racial character, too. However, in the new film, mentioned above, this bi-racial character was played by Kirsten Dunst. This totally ruined the whole point of the book that the black woman was really a slave in their household and the bi-racial woman (who was a free woman) could not seem to see that she herself was not truly white. And that, dear readers, is a very relevant part of the original book, why change it? (Rolls eyes). Is it so wrong to portray this black woman exactly how the author intended her to be? The way I see it, what she did in that house was her way of surviving. It’s an integral part of the story. Why hide it?
After all, if you look at the underage sex and the way the main male character acts by taking advantage of his position in a household full of young girls who are basically shut away from society, should he also be seen as wrong? These young girls are easy prey, but some, are also very willing to learn… Incidentally, I must say the heat and sexual tension within the book is superbly done.
I found parts of the way this was written to be a little repetitive and confusing in style, despite this, it was still a great story. It’s only told from the girls’ perspective, which in many ways adds to this atmospheric, hothouse of lies and deceit the further into the story you delve.
The Beguiled is chock full with a Gothic sense of foreboding and unease, set against a backdrop of the Civil War, which made for some serious, ghostly tension. Who is this injured solider who turns up on their doorstep? How can these girls protect themselves from this seductive man when they have no idea what life is like outside the four walls of the house they live in?
If you read right to the end you’ll find out the brilliant twist of fate this story has in store for you. A devious surprise!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Disney has continued their trend of live-action remakes of their animated classics with “Dumbo”. The film follows the same premise as the 1941 classic in that a baby elephant with giant ears is born into a travelling circus. Like in the animated film he is separated from his mother and soon becomes an unlikely circus act when it is discovered that his giant ears give him the power of flight.
In the new version we are introduced to Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell); who returns from WWI injured and dealing with the fact that his wife has died and he must raise their two children alone. Further complicating matters is the fact that Circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito), has sold the prized horses Holt used in his act in an effort to keep his struggling circus alive.
What has become a tragedy soon becomes a boon when wealthy industrialist V.A. Vandevere (<ichael Keaton) offers to make Max a partner and take him and his troup on at his fabled entertainment park with Dumbo as his featured star.
It is at this point where the film takes some wild deviations and becomes very linear with paper thin characters and an emphasis on effects over story.
Director Tim Burton has once again crafted a film filled with lavish visuals as his take on the entertainment park and circus is amazing; but it as usual comes at a cost. Like most of Burton’s works, the visuals are the star and key element and the development of characters and story are often given little more than lip service.
The same is true fro this film as we learn noting about the motivation of the characters and the villains play out as stock baddies without even a nod as to why they are so inclined to tehir action.s They are being evil just for the sake of being evil. The same can be said for the other characters as we are given very little reasons to care for them. There is a nice subplot with Eva Green but it is never fully developed and the worst part is that the title star almost becomes an afterthought in the final acts so we can be given scene after scene of lavinsh park visuals.
The film may be a bit to dark and intense at times for younger viewers and those who remember the original may have a hard time with this take of the film. It entertains at times but could have been so much better.
http://sknr.net/2019/03/26/dumbo/
In the new version we are introduced to Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell); who returns from WWI injured and dealing with the fact that his wife has died and he must raise their two children alone. Further complicating matters is the fact that Circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito), has sold the prized horses Holt used in his act in an effort to keep his struggling circus alive.
What has become a tragedy soon becomes a boon when wealthy industrialist V.A. Vandevere (<ichael Keaton) offers to make Max a partner and take him and his troup on at his fabled entertainment park with Dumbo as his featured star.
It is at this point where the film takes some wild deviations and becomes very linear with paper thin characters and an emphasis on effects over story.
Director Tim Burton has once again crafted a film filled with lavish visuals as his take on the entertainment park and circus is amazing; but it as usual comes at a cost. Like most of Burton’s works, the visuals are the star and key element and the development of characters and story are often given little more than lip service.
The same is true fro this film as we learn noting about the motivation of the characters and the villains play out as stock baddies without even a nod as to why they are so inclined to tehir action.s They are being evil just for the sake of being evil. The same can be said for the other characters as we are given very little reasons to care for them. There is a nice subplot with Eva Green but it is never fully developed and the worst part is that the title star almost becomes an afterthought in the final acts so we can be given scene after scene of lavinsh park visuals.
The film may be a bit to dark and intense at times for younger viewers and those who remember the original may have a hard time with this take of the film. It entertains at times but could have been so much better.
http://sknr.net/2019/03/26/dumbo/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Voyagers (2021) in Movies
Apr 7, 2021
The classic novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding is not only a beloved classic but has been assigned reading for generations of students since it was first published in 1954. The book has been adapted into plays and films over the years and remains a chilling and poignant cautionary tale.
In the new movie “Voyagers” audiences are introduced to an Earth that has been ravaged by climate change and disease. In an effort to save the species; a grand experiment to genetically create a group of children who are the origins of a colonization effort is undertaken.
The planet is 86 years away so the decision is made that the children will be raised and trained indoors without any exposure to nature, open skies, fresh air, and other aspects they will be deprived of on the ship.
Richard (Colin Farrell) decides to accompany the children on the mission as he wants to protect them and ensure things go as planned so their progeny will be well suited to continue on the mission to the next generation who will ultimately be the ones who colonize the planet.
Ten years into the mission things are going well until a discovery is made that a drink the children take daily known as “The Blue” is a drug used to suppress their emotions and keep them docile and easy to control.
When friends Christopher (Tye Sheridan) and Zac (Fionn Whitehead); who learned the secret of the drug decide to stop taking it; they soon reveal the truth of their discovery to the rest of the children who in turn stop using the drug.
In no time rampant emotions, aggressions, desires, paranoia, and mistrust start to run wild and Zac becomes obsessed with Sela (Lilly-Rose Depp). His unwelcome advances soon become more and more aggressive which causes Christopher and Richard to intervene and tragedy soon follows.
Christopher and Zac soon find themselves at odds with one another and fear and paranoia lead the crew to form into factions and turn on one other which not only threatens the mission but their very survival.
The film was very engaging and while I saw the influence of Lord of the Flies early on; the engaging cast and setting make the film entertaining and enjoyable despite any really unexpected twists.
The young leads work well with one another and it will be very interesting to watch how their careers unfold in the years to come. “Voyagers” is a refreshing new take on a classic tale and provides an entertaining and engaging adventure for viewers to enjoy.
In the new movie “Voyagers” audiences are introduced to an Earth that has been ravaged by climate change and disease. In an effort to save the species; a grand experiment to genetically create a group of children who are the origins of a colonization effort is undertaken.
The planet is 86 years away so the decision is made that the children will be raised and trained indoors without any exposure to nature, open skies, fresh air, and other aspects they will be deprived of on the ship.
Richard (Colin Farrell) decides to accompany the children on the mission as he wants to protect them and ensure things go as planned so their progeny will be well suited to continue on the mission to the next generation who will ultimately be the ones who colonize the planet.
Ten years into the mission things are going well until a discovery is made that a drink the children take daily known as “The Blue” is a drug used to suppress their emotions and keep them docile and easy to control.
When friends Christopher (Tye Sheridan) and Zac (Fionn Whitehead); who learned the secret of the drug decide to stop taking it; they soon reveal the truth of their discovery to the rest of the children who in turn stop using the drug.
In no time rampant emotions, aggressions, desires, paranoia, and mistrust start to run wild and Zac becomes obsessed with Sela (Lilly-Rose Depp). His unwelcome advances soon become more and more aggressive which causes Christopher and Richard to intervene and tragedy soon follows.
Christopher and Zac soon find themselves at odds with one another and fear and paranoia lead the crew to form into factions and turn on one other which not only threatens the mission but their very survival.
The film was very engaging and while I saw the influence of Lord of the Flies early on; the engaging cast and setting make the film entertaining and enjoyable despite any really unexpected twists.
The young leads work well with one another and it will be very interesting to watch how their careers unfold in the years to come. “Voyagers” is a refreshing new take on a classic tale and provides an entertaining and engaging adventure for viewers to enjoy.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Like many others, I've been pretty much sold on The Batman since the first trailer dropped, to the point where I was worried that my own hype would leave me disappointed. Luckily that's not the case. Matt Reeves has crafted the definitive live action Batman experience.
The character himself has gone through many iterations over the years, and most of them come with their own merits, but he works aesthetically and thematically better at the darker end of the spectrum. This Batman is certainly that. The narrative takes place wholeheartedly in the criminal underbelly of Gotham, bathing in it's corruption. It's noir-thriller construction compliments the setting perfectly, presenting a slow burning crime piece, with occasional bursts of action, that never feels boring over its near 3 hour runtime.
Pattinsons take on the character could be the very best yet. Through projects such as The Lighthouse and Tenet, he's proven that he has the chops for this kind of thing, and he nails it without a doubt. I was pleasantly surprised by how much on screen Batman we got. He's under the cowl more often than not, and it's an understandable direction to take considering how great the suit looks alongside the general aesthetic of the film. Paul Dano's Riddler is a worthy foe as well. This villain is portrayed as unhinged and dangerous from the get go, a person who is angry and upset with the world, and who has the capacity to bring Gotham to its knees. His master plan is wonderful to watch unfold. Dano is golden in anything he appears in, and my only real complaint about The Batman is that we didn't get more of him.
Colin Farrell, Zoe Kravitz, Jeffrey Wright, and John Turturro are all fantastic supports. It's a well rounded cast, playing well written characters.
The direction and cinematography on display is some of the best I've ever seen in a comic book movie. Reeves has a great eye, from Cloverfield to his Planet of the Apes entries, he has a certain brand of cinema magic that suits Gotham down to the ground. Throw Greig Fraser into the mix, fresh from his outstanding work with Dune, and you have a pretty solid pairing that results in a breathtaking, visual feast, all backed up by a phenomenal music score, from the ever reliable Michael Giacchino.
I can't heap enough praise onto The Batman, a patient, unforgiving, enthralling, and bleak comic adaption that sits at the top of the pile that is deserving of its glowing reviews.
The character himself has gone through many iterations over the years, and most of them come with their own merits, but he works aesthetically and thematically better at the darker end of the spectrum. This Batman is certainly that. The narrative takes place wholeheartedly in the criminal underbelly of Gotham, bathing in it's corruption. It's noir-thriller construction compliments the setting perfectly, presenting a slow burning crime piece, with occasional bursts of action, that never feels boring over its near 3 hour runtime.
Pattinsons take on the character could be the very best yet. Through projects such as The Lighthouse and Tenet, he's proven that he has the chops for this kind of thing, and he nails it without a doubt. I was pleasantly surprised by how much on screen Batman we got. He's under the cowl more often than not, and it's an understandable direction to take considering how great the suit looks alongside the general aesthetic of the film. Paul Dano's Riddler is a worthy foe as well. This villain is portrayed as unhinged and dangerous from the get go, a person who is angry and upset with the world, and who has the capacity to bring Gotham to its knees. His master plan is wonderful to watch unfold. Dano is golden in anything he appears in, and my only real complaint about The Batman is that we didn't get more of him.
Colin Farrell, Zoe Kravitz, Jeffrey Wright, and John Turturro are all fantastic supports. It's a well rounded cast, playing well written characters.
The direction and cinematography on display is some of the best I've ever seen in a comic book movie. Reeves has a great eye, from Cloverfield to his Planet of the Apes entries, he has a certain brand of cinema magic that suits Gotham down to the ground. Throw Greig Fraser into the mix, fresh from his outstanding work with Dune, and you have a pretty solid pairing that results in a breathtaking, visual feast, all backed up by a phenomenal music score, from the ever reliable Michael Giacchino.
I can't heap enough praise onto The Batman, a patient, unforgiving, enthralling, and bleak comic adaption that sits at the top of the pile that is deserving of its glowing reviews.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Miami Vice (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1984 a show arrived on NBC that instantly became a media sensation and set new standards for television dramas, as well as for music and fashion as it soon became a cultural icon.
The show was Miami Vice, and up until the final episode in 1989, legions of viewers tuned in every Friday night for a heady mix of action, music, color, and sex making series stars Philip Michael Thomas and Don Johnson some of the most identified and emulated celebrities in the world.
As time passed, the fickle television audience cooled on the show and it passed to television history, but not before leaving an indelible mark upon pop culture as to this day, the mere mention of the show unleashes a flood of memories and images from fans the world over.
Now close to two decades after the show went off the air, the creative talent behind the show, Michael Mann, has unleashed a cinematic version of his hit series, and it has arrived awash in the trademark neon colors, action, and style that made the series such a hit.
This time out, Oscar winner Jaime Foxx and Colin Farrell are Tubs and Crockett respectively, and they soon find themselves deep undercover posing as drug runners while trying to get to the bottom of a leak inside one of the law enforcement agencies. As troublesome as the leak, is, the fact that leaked information caused the deaths of undercover agents, by suspected white supremacists armed with the latest in high tech weaponry.
The deadly game of cloak and dagger unfolds as Tubbs and Crockett find themselves deep into a major criminal organization, and to add to the tension, Crockett finds himself drawn to an attractive member of the organization (Li Gong), who “belongs” to the head of the criminal plot.
As the plot unfolds, the danger of being discovered as well as becoming lost in the parts they are playing becomes a growing danger for Tubbs and Crockett, as they not only battle to keep their cover, but to stay alive and protect those closest to them.
The film has a plot that is a bit muddled at first, but like the world in which Tubbs and Crockett find themselves, there are not always clearly defines parameters as well as individuals. As simplistic as the basic plot may seem, the varying layers of characters, locales, and motivations keeps Miami Vice, a changing mystery, yet one that is lacking tension and deep drama.
The first hour of the film plods along with plenty of sex and setup, but surprisingly little action. I noted that there were five scenes of sex, and at least two more implied sex scenes before one of the lead characters even fired a weapon, which surprisingly came at 1 Hour and 40 minutes into the film.
While the film may take a while to get to the action, when it does come, it is surprisingly effective without falling victim to the usual Hollywood Traps of numerous gigantic explosions, car chases, stunts, and an abundance of C.G.I.
The violence in the film is also very graphic as there are numerous headshots, as well as splatter moments and gaping exit wounds. Despite this, it does not seem gratuitous but rather realistic as it portrays the brutality of the characters as well as the world in which they live and work.
The surprisingly effective finale confrontation satisfies and like any good director, Mann knows when to pull back, and when to go full out, without letting the action dominate the characters and the story.
Farrell and Foxx do a solid job with their characters without having the luxury of a deep back story. Mann’s script takes the approach that the viewers will know the characters and their history and omits things like Crockett’s ex wife, son, houseboat and pet alligator Elvis.
While this may seem trivial for a film that is over two hours in length, it does provide viewers with a better understanding of the characters and their actions and motivations, which I hope will be fully explored should a second film in the series be made.
That being said, despite the long setup, and a somewhat muddles plot, Miami Vice is a stylish and refreshing film, that should entertain fans of the original show.
The show was Miami Vice, and up until the final episode in 1989, legions of viewers tuned in every Friday night for a heady mix of action, music, color, and sex making series stars Philip Michael Thomas and Don Johnson some of the most identified and emulated celebrities in the world.
As time passed, the fickle television audience cooled on the show and it passed to television history, but not before leaving an indelible mark upon pop culture as to this day, the mere mention of the show unleashes a flood of memories and images from fans the world over.
Now close to two decades after the show went off the air, the creative talent behind the show, Michael Mann, has unleashed a cinematic version of his hit series, and it has arrived awash in the trademark neon colors, action, and style that made the series such a hit.
This time out, Oscar winner Jaime Foxx and Colin Farrell are Tubs and Crockett respectively, and they soon find themselves deep undercover posing as drug runners while trying to get to the bottom of a leak inside one of the law enforcement agencies. As troublesome as the leak, is, the fact that leaked information caused the deaths of undercover agents, by suspected white supremacists armed with the latest in high tech weaponry.
The deadly game of cloak and dagger unfolds as Tubbs and Crockett find themselves deep into a major criminal organization, and to add to the tension, Crockett finds himself drawn to an attractive member of the organization (Li Gong), who “belongs” to the head of the criminal plot.
As the plot unfolds, the danger of being discovered as well as becoming lost in the parts they are playing becomes a growing danger for Tubbs and Crockett, as they not only battle to keep their cover, but to stay alive and protect those closest to them.
The film has a plot that is a bit muddled at first, but like the world in which Tubbs and Crockett find themselves, there are not always clearly defines parameters as well as individuals. As simplistic as the basic plot may seem, the varying layers of characters, locales, and motivations keeps Miami Vice, a changing mystery, yet one that is lacking tension and deep drama.
The first hour of the film plods along with plenty of sex and setup, but surprisingly little action. I noted that there were five scenes of sex, and at least two more implied sex scenes before one of the lead characters even fired a weapon, which surprisingly came at 1 Hour and 40 minutes into the film.
While the film may take a while to get to the action, when it does come, it is surprisingly effective without falling victim to the usual Hollywood Traps of numerous gigantic explosions, car chases, stunts, and an abundance of C.G.I.
The violence in the film is also very graphic as there are numerous headshots, as well as splatter moments and gaping exit wounds. Despite this, it does not seem gratuitous but rather realistic as it portrays the brutality of the characters as well as the world in which they live and work.
The surprisingly effective finale confrontation satisfies and like any good director, Mann knows when to pull back, and when to go full out, without letting the action dominate the characters and the story.
Farrell and Foxx do a solid job with their characters without having the luxury of a deep back story. Mann’s script takes the approach that the viewers will know the characters and their history and omits things like Crockett’s ex wife, son, houseboat and pet alligator Elvis.
While this may seem trivial for a film that is over two hours in length, it does provide viewers with a better understanding of the characters and their actions and motivations, which I hope will be fully explored should a second film in the series be made.
That being said, despite the long setup, and a somewhat muddles plot, Miami Vice is a stylish and refreshing film, that should entertain fans of the original show.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 22, 2018
Dull, boring & confused
I'll start by saying I've never been enamoured with the idea of the Fantastic Beasts films. For me, the wizarding world should have been left alone. The first film was enjoyable to a point (mainly because of Eddie Redmayne and the niffler), but this second film is inexcusable. And the fact that they're making another 3 more... totally unnecessary.
This film doesn't get off to a good start with the opening sequence, and rarely gets any better throughout the entire 2+ hour runtime. Some of the camera angles and shots used are terrible, jumping around all over the place even when it's just dialogue and the action scenes are virtually unwatchable. Whilst the effects are good, the plot is convoluted, confusing and just plain old boring. The majority of the film is just dialogue, and not well scripted dialogue at that and it gets very dull very quickly.
The characters that were likeable in the first film were either poorly used or turned into something completely different to what was likeable about them in the first place. There are far too many characters in this and even with the far too long run time, there isn't much time for character development. Johnny Depp is horrendous as Grindelwald. Not only because the character himself is the least menacing villain you've ever seen, but he's just not a very good actor anymore. I actually think his original incarnation as Colin Farrell in the first film would've been much better. I also couldn't figure out what crimes he had committed until the final act. The only person to come out of this film fairly intact was Jude Law, who played a likeable Dumbledore even if he wasn't on screen nearly enough. And really, it was only the creatures that made this worth watching and there just wasn't enough of them. Definitely not enough Niffler antics!
My main issue with this film is that it's messing with canon, bringing in characters we don't want to see and telling a story we don't need to hear. We didn't need to see Hogwarts, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Nagini and a few others I won't name. It's turning the wizarding world into a convoluted mess. They could have made a fairly decent standalone first Fantastic Beasts film that didn't link in with Grindelwald or the history at all, but instead they've made this nonsense.
And if I didn't think it could get any worse, the reveal of Credence's real identity right at the end nearly had me shouting at the screen it was that bad and ridiculous.
I probably could have walked out of this film after half an hour and not been bothered. Terrible.
This film doesn't get off to a good start with the opening sequence, and rarely gets any better throughout the entire 2+ hour runtime. Some of the camera angles and shots used are terrible, jumping around all over the place even when it's just dialogue and the action scenes are virtually unwatchable. Whilst the effects are good, the plot is convoluted, confusing and just plain old boring. The majority of the film is just dialogue, and not well scripted dialogue at that and it gets very dull very quickly.
The characters that were likeable in the first film were either poorly used or turned into something completely different to what was likeable about them in the first place. There are far too many characters in this and even with the far too long run time, there isn't much time for character development. Johnny Depp is horrendous as Grindelwald. Not only because the character himself is the least menacing villain you've ever seen, but he's just not a very good actor anymore. I actually think his original incarnation as Colin Farrell in the first film would've been much better. I also couldn't figure out what crimes he had committed until the final act. The only person to come out of this film fairly intact was Jude Law, who played a likeable Dumbledore even if he wasn't on screen nearly enough. And really, it was only the creatures that made this worth watching and there just wasn't enough of them. Definitely not enough Niffler antics!
My main issue with this film is that it's messing with canon, bringing in characters we don't want to see and telling a story we don't need to hear. We didn't need to see Hogwarts, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Nagini and a few others I won't name. It's turning the wizarding world into a convoluted mess. They could have made a fairly decent standalone first Fantastic Beasts film that didn't link in with Grindelwald or the history at all, but instead they've made this nonsense.
And if I didn't think it could get any worse, the reveal of Credence's real identity right at the end nearly had me shouting at the screen it was that bad and ridiculous.
I probably could have walked out of this film after half an hour and not been bothered. Terrible.
Tyler Fletcher (8 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 14, 2020
Character development (1 more)
Forgettable story
Another Live-Action Disney Adaption Bomb
Contains spoilers, click to show
What is it about fantasy novels that makes them so difficult to translate effectively to the silver screen? It’s not impossible – J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series and Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings adaptations are proof that it can be done. More often than not, however, the result is as limp and truncated as Kenneth Branagh’s Artemis Fowl – a few standout moments set adrift in a sea of underdeveloped characters, incomplete backstory elements, and abbreviated world building. Although the problem lies primarily in the difficulties associated with condensing an epic tale into a short-ish movie, the lack of elegance with which that is accomplished makes Artemis Fowl a failure for anyone hoping for the next great fantasy film.
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Saving Mr. Banks (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
One of the greatest Disney classics, “Mary Poppins” has a unique history on its long journey from the page to the silver screen. In “Saving Mr. Banks”, the twenty year battle between Walt Disney and the notoriously difficult author is told in a touching and gripping tale.
Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney who after making a promise to his daughters to bring their beloved Mary Poppins books to life embarks on a frustrating battle with author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), that lasts twenty years.
Faced with financial need following a lack of published materials, Travers reluctantly agrees to travel from her home in London to meet with Disney to discuss signing over the rights to her beloved character. Travers is a very abrupt individual who has no problem speaking her mind and is not one to spare feelings with her cutting and direct barbs.
Travers has little love for animation, Disneyland, or the whimsy that accompanies all things Disney and is terrified that her beloved Mary Poppins will be turned into some silly and childish film, hence her reluctance to sign over the theatrical rights.
Over the two weeks of her visit to California, Walt, and the talented Sherman Brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) endure her icy behavior, harsh criticisms and intolerance for their work and efforts. Travers is horrified with everything from their casting choices to the inclusion of music and many aspects of the script and look of the characters.
Undaunted, Walt and company press on in the face of overwhelming adversity and unending opposition from Travers and slowly but surely make progress in appeasing Travers as they bring the film closer and closer to fruition.
What follows is a very moving, funny and enjoyable tale that is powered by outstanding performances by the two leads and the very strong supporting cast, especially that of Paul Giamatti who plays a driver named Ralph who has to endure the venom of Travers has he drives her around during her stay.
The film does a good job of showing what Travers endured as a child thanks to her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell), and how her experiences with his struggles helped form the woman she was to become.
While aspects of the true story have been softened somewhat in the final act from what happened in reality, the film is very honest and effective.
Many of the memorable classic songs from the movie appear in the film but are done in a very natural way as they are introduced to viewers as they are being introduced to the characters in the film.
While some aspects of the film may be a little darker than people would come to expect from a Disney movie, the film is a very enjoyable experience that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/saving-mr-banks/
Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney who after making a promise to his daughters to bring their beloved Mary Poppins books to life embarks on a frustrating battle with author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), that lasts twenty years.
Faced with financial need following a lack of published materials, Travers reluctantly agrees to travel from her home in London to meet with Disney to discuss signing over the rights to her beloved character. Travers is a very abrupt individual who has no problem speaking her mind and is not one to spare feelings with her cutting and direct barbs.
Travers has little love for animation, Disneyland, or the whimsy that accompanies all things Disney and is terrified that her beloved Mary Poppins will be turned into some silly and childish film, hence her reluctance to sign over the theatrical rights.
Over the two weeks of her visit to California, Walt, and the talented Sherman Brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) endure her icy behavior, harsh criticisms and intolerance for their work and efforts. Travers is horrified with everything from their casting choices to the inclusion of music and many aspects of the script and look of the characters.
Undaunted, Walt and company press on in the face of overwhelming adversity and unending opposition from Travers and slowly but surely make progress in appeasing Travers as they bring the film closer and closer to fruition.
What follows is a very moving, funny and enjoyable tale that is powered by outstanding performances by the two leads and the very strong supporting cast, especially that of Paul Giamatti who plays a driver named Ralph who has to endure the venom of Travers has he drives her around during her stay.
The film does a good job of showing what Travers endured as a child thanks to her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell), and how her experiences with his struggles helped form the woman she was to become.
While aspects of the true story have been softened somewhat in the final act from what happened in reality, the film is very honest and effective.
Many of the memorable classic songs from the movie appear in the film but are done in a very natural way as they are introduced to viewers as they are being introduced to the characters in the film.
While some aspects of the film may be a little darker than people would come to expect from a Disney movie, the film is a very enjoyable experience that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/saving-mr-banks/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Clever and Inventive
Ever since he burst onto the film scene with back-to-back interesting British Mob movies LOCK, STOCK & TWO SMOKING BARRELS and SNATCH, Director Guy Ritchie has had a "hit and miss" track record (including the Madonna-starring, Razzie-Award "winner" SWEPT AWAY). Fortunately, for us, we seem to be in a Guy Ritchie "peak" a this moment.
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Mar 31, 2019
It's set to be a busy year for live action Disney remakes, with Aladdin and The Lion King already lined up for release this year. Kicking things off though, is this reimagining of the 1941 classic Dumbo, with Tim Burton directing.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.