Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Bigger isn't always better
Ridley Scott’s Alien prequel Prometheus wasn’t as warmly received as the veteran director had hoped for upon its release in 2012. In pitching the film for the coveted 12A market, Scott lost the majority of what made his 1979 masterpiece, rated 18, such an epic adventure.
So, five years on, Scott returns with a follow-up that aims to answer those irritating questions that Prometheus left us with. But is Alien: Covenant a return to form for the series? Or yet another damp squib?
Bound for a remote planet on the far side of the galaxy, crew members (Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride) of the colony ship Covenant discover a distress signal from what they believe to be an uncharted paradise. While there, they meet David (Michael Fassbender), the synthetic survivor of the doomed Prometheus expedition. However, this new mysterious world soon turns dangerous when a hostile alien life-form forces the crew into a deadly fight for survival.
In Covenant, Scott has tried to take the series back to its horror roots. This is a gory and at times difficult film to stomach, but it just isn’t scary. Despite gaining a 15 certification from the BBFC, Covenant feels like Prometheus on steroids – it’s certainly bigger and in many ways better than its predecessor, but it fails to move this ailing franchise in any new direction.
Naturally, character development takes a backseat here, as it does with many films in the genre, but Scott cleverly casts his characters as loving couples, which raises the emotion once the inevitable bloodshed starts to occur.
That cast is most definitely Covenant’s strongest suit. Prometheus had a distinctly unlikeable roster of characters that didn’t gel together. Here, the way they interact is believable and each of the couplings has a degree of chemistry that helps give their deaths some emotional heft.
Katherine Waterston channels Sigourney Weaver to some extent and makes a good leading lady and Danny McBride’s Tennessee is an excellent presence in an against-type performance from the comedian. However, Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of androids Walter and David is exceptional.
To look at, this is by far the best film in the series. Scott has crafted a detailed, haunting world that emits a damp, grey colour palate. The action is expertly shot, but this is to be expected from a director with decades in the industry. Even the Covenant ship itself feels more grounded in reality when compared to the technology of the Prometheus.
Unfortunately, once the remaining crew arrive ‘safely’ back onboard the Mother ship, things start to unravel rapidly. The film takes far too long to land on the uncharted planet meaning that the final act is rushed and this is a real shame considering the middle 45 minutes feature some of the best sequences in the entire series.
It is nice to see our favourite movie extra-terrestrial’s back in the confines of a spaceship, and the CGI used to bring them to life means they move with a fluidity like never before, but there just isn’t enough of it. It needs more Xenomorph.
Elsewhere, Jed Kurzel’s beautiful score lifts the film in its first half, becoming deeply unnerving and claustrophobic in its second. The change in tone is obvious and helps signify the optimism of the crew as they land, compared with the terror as those that remain leave the planet.
Overall, Alien: Covenant improves on Prometheus in the sense that it feels like a true Alien film, rather than a half-baked idea to cash in on the franchise. Unfortunately, a poor final act, a lack of new direction and yet another frustratingly open story means we still may not get the answers we so desperately want until the inevitable sequel arrives in a few years time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/12/bigger-isnt-always-better-alien-covenant-review/
So, five years on, Scott returns with a follow-up that aims to answer those irritating questions that Prometheus left us with. But is Alien: Covenant a return to form for the series? Or yet another damp squib?
Bound for a remote planet on the far side of the galaxy, crew members (Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride) of the colony ship Covenant discover a distress signal from what they believe to be an uncharted paradise. While there, they meet David (Michael Fassbender), the synthetic survivor of the doomed Prometheus expedition. However, this new mysterious world soon turns dangerous when a hostile alien life-form forces the crew into a deadly fight for survival.
In Covenant, Scott has tried to take the series back to its horror roots. This is a gory and at times difficult film to stomach, but it just isn’t scary. Despite gaining a 15 certification from the BBFC, Covenant feels like Prometheus on steroids – it’s certainly bigger and in many ways better than its predecessor, but it fails to move this ailing franchise in any new direction.
Naturally, character development takes a backseat here, as it does with many films in the genre, but Scott cleverly casts his characters as loving couples, which raises the emotion once the inevitable bloodshed starts to occur.
That cast is most definitely Covenant’s strongest suit. Prometheus had a distinctly unlikeable roster of characters that didn’t gel together. Here, the way they interact is believable and each of the couplings has a degree of chemistry that helps give their deaths some emotional heft.
Katherine Waterston channels Sigourney Weaver to some extent and makes a good leading lady and Danny McBride’s Tennessee is an excellent presence in an against-type performance from the comedian. However, Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of androids Walter and David is exceptional.
To look at, this is by far the best film in the series. Scott has crafted a detailed, haunting world that emits a damp, grey colour palate. The action is expertly shot, but this is to be expected from a director with decades in the industry. Even the Covenant ship itself feels more grounded in reality when compared to the technology of the Prometheus.
Unfortunately, once the remaining crew arrive ‘safely’ back onboard the Mother ship, things start to unravel rapidly. The film takes far too long to land on the uncharted planet meaning that the final act is rushed and this is a real shame considering the middle 45 minutes feature some of the best sequences in the entire series.
It is nice to see our favourite movie extra-terrestrial’s back in the confines of a spaceship, and the CGI used to bring them to life means they move with a fluidity like never before, but there just isn’t enough of it. It needs more Xenomorph.
Elsewhere, Jed Kurzel’s beautiful score lifts the film in its first half, becoming deeply unnerving and claustrophobic in its second. The change in tone is obvious and helps signify the optimism of the crew as they land, compared with the terror as those that remain leave the planet.
Overall, Alien: Covenant improves on Prometheus in the sense that it feels like a true Alien film, rather than a half-baked idea to cash in on the franchise. Unfortunately, a poor final act, a lack of new direction and yet another frustratingly open story means we still may not get the answers we so desperately want until the inevitable sequel arrives in a few years time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/12/bigger-isnt-always-better-alien-covenant-review/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Top Five (2014) in Movies
Mar 23, 2018
Great Comedy
Journalist Chelsea Brown (Rosario Dawson) is shadowing actor/comedian Andre Allen (Chris Rock) for a day as he promotes his new film. Still recovering from being an alcoholic, Allen is trying to juggle all the different moving parts of his life while planning for a wedding at the same time.
Acting: 10
Stellar performances all around from an amazing cast. While Rock was excellent, I have to show the most love to Dawson who checks all the boxes in her role. She's witty, funny, challenging, vulnerable. Just an all-around success.
And every single time I think about Cedric the Entertainer's role as Jazzy Dee, I can't help but crack a smile. Cedric typically excels in character roles and Top Five is no exception as he hosts Rock's character in Houston. I can't remember one scene he was in where I wasn't openly laughing.
Beginning: 10
The film gets off to an excellent start setting the tone for things to come. Andre and Chelsea are walking the streets of New York having multiple debates at once. Seeing their clashing point of views is perfect.
Characters: 10
You want an array of different personalities, you absolutely have it with Top Five. Chelsea's character is phenomenal with her brutal honesty and reluctant vulnerability. She is just what Andre needs in his life. Meanwhile, Jazzy Dee is the definition of hood swag. He wants everyone to know that he's the man in Houston and you almost start to believe him. Among others, I also enjoyed the role of Benny played by Romany Malco. He plays a publicist trying to keep everything together as things fall apart all around him.
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Solid shots that will always stick out in my head are any involving Hammy the Bear and the scenes where Andre is surrounded by the people he loves. There are definitely others I can't mention for the sake of spoiling the film, but I will remember them for a very long time.
Conflict: 10
As the story progressed, there was always something going on to pay attention to. Andre's struggles and all the things he was having to deal with kept me motivated to watch to see how things were going to play out. Definitely more moving parts than I would have expected.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
When I think of how memorable this film will be for me, both scenes where Andre and his family are debating their top five rappers of all time will always stand out for me. Whether it was rappers, NBA players, video games, these were common amongst my family and friends. Watching his family go at it, agreeing and disagreeing with each other, was a taste of home for me.
The cameos are bananas, making you wonder who's going show up next. Again, there are a couple of scenes that make the film extremely memorable, but even me describing them here wouldn't do them justice. Trust me when I say it's something you have to see, believe, then laugh uncontrollably at.
Pace: 10
Solid progression from one scene to the next. There was never a point where I was checking Google or thinking of what movie I was going to watch next. This film kept me engrossed.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 8
The ending was darn-near perfect. Sure, they could have given you just a taste more (hence the 8), but I thought it wrapped at a nice stopping point if you ask me. It did what it needed to do and it was gone.
Overall: 91
I was pleasantly surprised with how much I liked this film for a number of reasons. It's a sleeper that I highly recommend.
Acting: 10
Stellar performances all around from an amazing cast. While Rock was excellent, I have to show the most love to Dawson who checks all the boxes in her role. She's witty, funny, challenging, vulnerable. Just an all-around success.
And every single time I think about Cedric the Entertainer's role as Jazzy Dee, I can't help but crack a smile. Cedric typically excels in character roles and Top Five is no exception as he hosts Rock's character in Houston. I can't remember one scene he was in where I wasn't openly laughing.
Beginning: 10
The film gets off to an excellent start setting the tone for things to come. Andre and Chelsea are walking the streets of New York having multiple debates at once. Seeing their clashing point of views is perfect.
Characters: 10
You want an array of different personalities, you absolutely have it with Top Five. Chelsea's character is phenomenal with her brutal honesty and reluctant vulnerability. She is just what Andre needs in his life. Meanwhile, Jazzy Dee is the definition of hood swag. He wants everyone to know that he's the man in Houston and you almost start to believe him. Among others, I also enjoyed the role of Benny played by Romany Malco. He plays a publicist trying to keep everything together as things fall apart all around him.
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Solid shots that will always stick out in my head are any involving Hammy the Bear and the scenes where Andre is surrounded by the people he loves. There are definitely others I can't mention for the sake of spoiling the film, but I will remember them for a very long time.
Conflict: 10
As the story progressed, there was always something going on to pay attention to. Andre's struggles and all the things he was having to deal with kept me motivated to watch to see how things were going to play out. Definitely more moving parts than I would have expected.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
When I think of how memorable this film will be for me, both scenes where Andre and his family are debating their top five rappers of all time will always stand out for me. Whether it was rappers, NBA players, video games, these were common amongst my family and friends. Watching his family go at it, agreeing and disagreeing with each other, was a taste of home for me.
The cameos are bananas, making you wonder who's going show up next. Again, there are a couple of scenes that make the film extremely memorable, but even me describing them here wouldn't do them justice. Trust me when I say it's something you have to see, believe, then laugh uncontrollably at.
Pace: 10
Solid progression from one scene to the next. There was never a point where I was checking Google or thinking of what movie I was going to watch next. This film kept me engrossed.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 8
The ending was darn-near perfect. Sure, they could have given you just a taste more (hence the 8), but I thought it wrapped at a nice stopping point if you ask me. It did what it needed to do and it was gone.
Overall: 91
I was pleasantly surprised with how much I liked this film for a number of reasons. It's a sleeper that I highly recommend.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Due Date (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Last year, Todd Phillips brought us The Hangover. Along with its massive success, it helped turn its three lead actors into even bigger stars. Included in that line up was Zach Galifianakis, stand-up comedian turned actor who now seems to be Phillips go to guy. So how could Galifianakis possibly top being in the highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time? He teams up with the man who became known for his portrayal of Tony Stark in Iron Man and Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes, Robert Downey Jr, for the most outrageous comedy of 2010.
Seeing Robert Downey Jr in a film like this after his career exploded from doing Iron Man seems more outstanding than it really is. Or maybe it's just the mere thought of seeing the lead actor from some of the past few years biggest blockbusters in an R-rated comedy that features his character get high and be extremely ill tempered throughout its duration is entertaining in itself and strangely liberating. There isn't source material to follow that if strayed too far away from could cause fans to go into an uproar. Due Date is an original film and it just seems like doing comedy after two superhero films and a film based on the world's most infamous fictional detective would be creative freedom of sorts.
There was some concern that Zach Galifianakis' character in Due Date would be too similar to his character in The Hangover to really deliver a lot of laughs or be distinguishable in comparison. Truth be told, both characters are extremely similar but it works so well. Galifianakis is so funny, it hurts. Ethan Tremblay's ignorance is really what makes the film so incredibly ridiculous, over the top, and just downright hysterical. The blossoming friendship between Peter and Ethan is where the heart of the film truly lies though. The chemistry between both RDJ and Galifianakis is what makes so many scenes in the film so great. Watching Peter be in agony over having to deal with Ethan and his eccentric ways is pure comedy gold.
An interesting note about the film is that nearly every scene from the trailer is in the film. With all the alternate takes and deleted scenes that get shuffled around these days before a film gets released in theaters, that's saying a lot. It does make you wonder what sort of extras will be on the DVD and BD versions of the film though. One scene comes to mind that wasn't in the film, but that's it. Everything else that you've probably memorized ("You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.") is in there.
A few scenes to be on the lookout for, Peter has a certain way of dealing with the kids of a local drug dealer named Heidi (played by Juliette Lewis) that is sure to get an outstanding reaction from a packed theater. Also, the film puts an awkward yet priceless spin on the simple act of masturbating . There are so many gloriously preposterous things that transpire in the film that it should give you plenty of material to talk about with friends for days.
It's safe to consider Due Date as this year's The Hangover and that should definitely be taken as a compliment. It's the same director and one third of the main cast, but Due Date manages to set the bar for ludicrous acts achieved in film. Zach Galifianakis will provide most of the laughs, but it's the chemistry between both him and Robert Downey Jr that makes the comedy feel a bit more genuine than other comedies out there.
Seeing Robert Downey Jr in a film like this after his career exploded from doing Iron Man seems more outstanding than it really is. Or maybe it's just the mere thought of seeing the lead actor from some of the past few years biggest blockbusters in an R-rated comedy that features his character get high and be extremely ill tempered throughout its duration is entertaining in itself and strangely liberating. There isn't source material to follow that if strayed too far away from could cause fans to go into an uproar. Due Date is an original film and it just seems like doing comedy after two superhero films and a film based on the world's most infamous fictional detective would be creative freedom of sorts.
There was some concern that Zach Galifianakis' character in Due Date would be too similar to his character in The Hangover to really deliver a lot of laughs or be distinguishable in comparison. Truth be told, both characters are extremely similar but it works so well. Galifianakis is so funny, it hurts. Ethan Tremblay's ignorance is really what makes the film so incredibly ridiculous, over the top, and just downright hysterical. The blossoming friendship between Peter and Ethan is where the heart of the film truly lies though. The chemistry between both RDJ and Galifianakis is what makes so many scenes in the film so great. Watching Peter be in agony over having to deal with Ethan and his eccentric ways is pure comedy gold.
An interesting note about the film is that nearly every scene from the trailer is in the film. With all the alternate takes and deleted scenes that get shuffled around these days before a film gets released in theaters, that's saying a lot. It does make you wonder what sort of extras will be on the DVD and BD versions of the film though. One scene comes to mind that wasn't in the film, but that's it. Everything else that you've probably memorized ("You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.") is in there.
A few scenes to be on the lookout for, Peter has a certain way of dealing with the kids of a local drug dealer named Heidi (played by Juliette Lewis) that is sure to get an outstanding reaction from a packed theater. Also, the film puts an awkward yet priceless spin on the simple act of masturbating . There are so many gloriously preposterous things that transpire in the film that it should give you plenty of material to talk about with friends for days.
It's safe to consider Due Date as this year's The Hangover and that should definitely be taken as a compliment. It's the same director and one third of the main cast, but Due Date manages to set the bar for ludicrous acts achieved in film. Zach Galifianakis will provide most of the laughs, but it's the chemistry between both him and Robert Downey Jr that makes the comedy feel a bit more genuine than other comedies out there.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A powerful force is hidden on Earth, three Mother Boxes, previously used by Steppenwolf and his army of Parademons in an attempt to conquer Earth. As the planet mourns the loss of Superman the power is ignited again and triggers Steppenwolf's return to Earth. When Themyscira is attacked and their Mother Box is stolen, Queen Hippolyta warns her daughter of what is to come.
Bruce Wayne (Batman, shhhh don't tell anyone) enlists Diana Prince to help him gather other metahumans in an effort to stop the impending destruction of the Earth. It's time to meet the new recruits: Arthur Curry AKA Aquaman, Barry Allen AKA The Flash, and Victor Stone AKA Cyborg.
My worry here was that they couldn't come close to how well they did with Wonder Woman. Thankfully, while not everything was quite right, I really enjoyed this film and I barely felt any pain at watching this... all the pain happened when I rewatched Batman Vs Superman before going to see Justice League.
Let me get the gripes out of the way. The CGI, which seems to be a quibble from a lot of people. I'm not really sure how you manage to successfully do so much of it, and yet the villain... quite a major part of the film... looked terrible. In all honesty he kind of looked like they'd tried to recreate Liam Neeson in some shots so why not just get Liam Neeson in and wack some makeup on him. I'd totally have watched that. As for CGIing off Henry Cavill's moustache, admittedly some of the shots looked a little bit off, but I'm not convinced that if we hadn't known about it that most of us would have been able to tell, because who is going to be staring at that unless you have a fetish for his upper lip?
They also tried to make Batman/Bruce Wayne funny, which felt a little odd, and slightly forced at times. You can understand it to some degree, when you're bringing in Flash who is generally regarded as the comedian of the bunch then you're going to have to add some humour in so that he doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
Obviously we know that I love Wonder Woman, so there isn't a lot I need to say there, she still rocked. I enjoyed Jason Momoa as Aquaman, and yes, a significant portion of that was looking at his half naked body. But I thought he played the part really well, and I loved him getting caught out by Diana's lasso. With the other two I was worried that me knowing them from other things would make it difficult getting to grips with these new incarnations. Thankfully it wasn't too bad though. As it happens I'm not a fan of either Grant Gustin or Ezra Miller in the role of Flash. This film version is probably more how I picture his character, but neither actor really brings it across to me quite how I'd hope. Finally, Ray Fisher as Cyborg, mock me if you must, but I've only seen the character in action as part of Teen Titans Go! In that he's a somewhat happy go lucky chap who loves his food, and this one is a bit more angsty as his creation is quite fresh. I enjoyed him as a character though, it was interesting to see how he developed as his powers did.
I'm not really sure how I felt about the Superman regeneration part of the story, I suppose at least he did a David Tennant and regenerated into himself.
Not a bad offering after Wonder Woman, and I'm looking forward to the follow up films that'll be coming out over the next few years.
Bruce Wayne (Batman, shhhh don't tell anyone) enlists Diana Prince to help him gather other metahumans in an effort to stop the impending destruction of the Earth. It's time to meet the new recruits: Arthur Curry AKA Aquaman, Barry Allen AKA The Flash, and Victor Stone AKA Cyborg.
My worry here was that they couldn't come close to how well they did with Wonder Woman. Thankfully, while not everything was quite right, I really enjoyed this film and I barely felt any pain at watching this... all the pain happened when I rewatched Batman Vs Superman before going to see Justice League.
Let me get the gripes out of the way. The CGI, which seems to be a quibble from a lot of people. I'm not really sure how you manage to successfully do so much of it, and yet the villain... quite a major part of the film... looked terrible. In all honesty he kind of looked like they'd tried to recreate Liam Neeson in some shots so why not just get Liam Neeson in and wack some makeup on him. I'd totally have watched that. As for CGIing off Henry Cavill's moustache, admittedly some of the shots looked a little bit off, but I'm not convinced that if we hadn't known about it that most of us would have been able to tell, because who is going to be staring at that unless you have a fetish for his upper lip?
They also tried to make Batman/Bruce Wayne funny, which felt a little odd, and slightly forced at times. You can understand it to some degree, when you're bringing in Flash who is generally regarded as the comedian of the bunch then you're going to have to add some humour in so that he doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
Obviously we know that I love Wonder Woman, so there isn't a lot I need to say there, she still rocked. I enjoyed Jason Momoa as Aquaman, and yes, a significant portion of that was looking at his half naked body. But I thought he played the part really well, and I loved him getting caught out by Diana's lasso. With the other two I was worried that me knowing them from other things would make it difficult getting to grips with these new incarnations. Thankfully it wasn't too bad though. As it happens I'm not a fan of either Grant Gustin or Ezra Miller in the role of Flash. This film version is probably more how I picture his character, but neither actor really brings it across to me quite how I'd hope. Finally, Ray Fisher as Cyborg, mock me if you must, but I've only seen the character in action as part of Teen Titans Go! In that he's a somewhat happy go lucky chap who loves his food, and this one is a bit more angsty as his creation is quite fresh. I enjoyed him as a character though, it was interesting to see how he developed as his powers did.
I'm not really sure how I felt about the Superman regeneration part of the story, I suppose at least he did a David Tennant and regenerated into himself.
Not a bad offering after Wonder Woman, and I'm looking forward to the follow up films that'll be coming out over the next few years.
Darren (1599 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
Characters – Bill was always considered the leader of the gang, he went onto write books and coming back he must face the fear about his brother’s death. Beverly has married an abusive rich man that she wants to escape from, which sees her return to Derry, where she could recapture her own love interest from childhood. Richie is a stand up comedian that is just how you would imagine him to grow up to be like, he gets plenty of laughs through the film. Mike never left Derry, he has been studying how to defeat Pennywise once and for all, he calls everybody back to the town. Ben was the fat kid, he transformed himself and became an architect with great success, he will see this return as a chance to tell Beverly how he feels. Eddie is reluctant to return though it does get him away from his wife, that is just like his mother, he will need to overcome the fears which have held him back before. Stanley is one of the group that doesn’t return, he has his reasons and it poses the reality of what will come with returning. Pennywise is the evil figure, who mostly looks like a clown, though he can become anything he wants to play into the fears. It is strange that we just don’t get that invested in the adult versions of the characters.
Performances – Jessica Chastain and James McAvoy are the two biggest names in the film, they are both fine, because nobody is a true main character, the two could do more and McAvoy is difficult to watch because his choice of accent reminds me about the 10-year-old he plays in Split. Bill Hader and James Ransone are the stars of the returning characters, they still have great chemistry. Isaiah Mustafa and Jay Ryan are both solid enough, though the characters seem to have swapped around.
Story – The story is the second part of the massive book, it follows the adult versions of the losers club that must return to fight Pennywise once again. This is a very long story, it is just under 3 hours long, which does feel like it drags along at times, once problem comes with more flashbacks with hauntings, there is no peril here, because we know the adult versions live. One of the strengths in the film is the idea of being reunited after years away with friends, it does feel natural and just how you would imagine it being. One of the issues I found in the first film was that Ben was the one that spent time learning the history of the town, while Mike did barely anything, it confused me because I always remembered it being Mike that understood the history, here it is Mike and Ben doesn’t seem to care anymore, add in the weird love triangle and you will feel like we have more that didn’t need to be here too.
Horror – The horror side of the film follows the hauntings that both the kids and adults go through, it is more just separate characters getting haunting throughout. Nothing feels as scarier as the first one was.
Settings – The film takes us back to Derry, we do get flashbacks with other moments that make sense and return to the old places where the scares happen.
Special Effects – The effects are brilliant in places, though it does feel certain CGI moments just don’t work.
Scene of the Movie – Richie’s memory.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – James McAvoy’s accent.
Final Thoughts – This is a bogged down horror that just is way too long to get the best out of the scares, just like the mini series, it fizzles out.
Overall: Disappointing sequel.
Performances – Jessica Chastain and James McAvoy are the two biggest names in the film, they are both fine, because nobody is a true main character, the two could do more and McAvoy is difficult to watch because his choice of accent reminds me about the 10-year-old he plays in Split. Bill Hader and James Ransone are the stars of the returning characters, they still have great chemistry. Isaiah Mustafa and Jay Ryan are both solid enough, though the characters seem to have swapped around.
Story – The story is the second part of the massive book, it follows the adult versions of the losers club that must return to fight Pennywise once again. This is a very long story, it is just under 3 hours long, which does feel like it drags along at times, once problem comes with more flashbacks with hauntings, there is no peril here, because we know the adult versions live. One of the strengths in the film is the idea of being reunited after years away with friends, it does feel natural and just how you would imagine it being. One of the issues I found in the first film was that Ben was the one that spent time learning the history of the town, while Mike did barely anything, it confused me because I always remembered it being Mike that understood the history, here it is Mike and Ben doesn’t seem to care anymore, add in the weird love triangle and you will feel like we have more that didn’t need to be here too.
Horror – The horror side of the film follows the hauntings that both the kids and adults go through, it is more just separate characters getting haunting throughout. Nothing feels as scarier as the first one was.
Settings – The film takes us back to Derry, we do get flashbacks with other moments that make sense and return to the old places where the scares happen.
Special Effects – The effects are brilliant in places, though it does feel certain CGI moments just don’t work.
Scene of the Movie – Richie’s memory.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – James McAvoy’s accent.
Final Thoughts – This is a bogged down horror that just is way too long to get the best out of the scares, just like the mini series, it fizzles out.
Overall: Disappointing sequel.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Apr 10, 2019 (Updated Apr 10, 2019)
Fantastic performances all round (2 more)
Brilliant direction
Lighting is on point
Just You & I
Contains spoilers, click to show
I saw Us last night and I really enjoyed it. It's the latest movie by comedian turned horror auteur Jordan Peele and after how much I loved Get Out, I was very much looking forward to seeing this. I think that if Us had came before Get Out, I probably would have enjoyed it more, as for every element that I enjoyed in Us, I couldn't help but keep thinking that it had already been done better in Get Out.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Disappointingly Average
I love The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo series. The Swedish films are excellent and David Fincher’s US adaptation was a decent watch too. Lisbeth Salander is such an iconic and well-written character, so her return to the big screen was met with much anticipation. With a new cast and new story I was looking forward to seeing it, catching a Limitless preview screening a few days before its general UK release. Unfortunately, it didn’t live up to my relatively high expectations.
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Joker follows Arthur Fleck’s descent from a somewhat mentally troubled comedian to becoming the Joker, arch Batman villain and force for chaos.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Almost Just Friends (Wildstone #4) in Books
Jan 21, 2020
Usually I don't read romance novels since they really aren't my thing. However, there was something about the synopsis of Almost Just Friends by Jill Shalvis that caught my attention. Perhaps it was the fact that there were family secrets involved! Luckily, I really really enjoyed Almost Just Friends.
Piper is a young woman who has always been in control, so much so that she even has a bullet journal to help her through life. She's raised her siblings since she was 13, and when they return home, Piper eventually learns what secrets her brother and sister are keeping from her. During this, she is falling head over heels for her next door neighbor's son, Cam, who is home from the military. These feelings for Cam might just be her undoing!
I will say that I loved the plot for Almost Just Friends. Everything about it felt very realistic and like something that happens almost every day in small town America. I enjoyed the love story between Cam and Piper and how it took its time developing instead of just being instalove. I also enjoyed the narrative between Piper and her siblings. I could picture every single scene in my mind quite clearly thanks to Jill Shalvis' fantastic story telling! Almost Just Friends answered all my questions by the end of the book, and there were no cliffhangers which I was thankful for.
I enjoyed every single character in Almost Just Friends. They all brought their own personality to the table, and they were each very interesting to read about. All of the characters in this novel felt like they could be someone I could relate to as well as making fantastic friends. Piper starts off being too self reliant. It was nice to see her start letting others help her. She was forced to grow up at a young age after the death of her parents, so I could understand why she was scared of losing control and putting faith in other people. I loved how patient Cam was with Piper. He was so loving and helpful. It was also nice to see him blending in so well with Piper's siblings and wanting to help out. Cam was such a charming man with such a larger than life personality. Gavin, Piper's brother, had been fighting his own demons. I kept wondering if he'd go back to his own ways or not. I loved his relationship with CJ and how he wasn't going to let CJ walk away from him so easily. Gavin always was great at relieving tense and awkward situations which one thing I really loved about him! Winnie, Piper's sister, was the youngest out of Piper, Gavin, and herself. Winnie decided it was time for her to start being more adult like instead of child like. Her news was the biggest, in my opinion, and while I could understand why she wanted to keep it from Piper, I wish she would have told Piper from the get go. However, Winnie had me smiling whenever I read about her. I admired her tenacity to want to be Miss Fix It. Emmit, Cam's dad, was ever the comedian! I loved how happy go lucky he was and his sunny disposition on life was. It was as if nothing ever bothered him, and I admired that about him. Every single character in Almost Just Friends made it such a fantastic read!
Trigger warnings for Almost Just Friends include profanity, some sexual situations (although nothing too graphic), death, and mentions of prescription drug abuse.
All in all, Almost Just Friends is such a heartwarming read with a fantastic set of characters and a solid plot. This was my first book I read by Jill Shalvis, but it certainly won't be my last! I would definitely recommend Almost Just Friends by Jill Shalvis to those aged 17+ who are after an uplifting novel that deals with family with a sweet romance thrown in.
--
(A special thank you to William Morrow with a paperback of Almost Just Friends by Jill Shalvis in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Piper is a young woman who has always been in control, so much so that she even has a bullet journal to help her through life. She's raised her siblings since she was 13, and when they return home, Piper eventually learns what secrets her brother and sister are keeping from her. During this, she is falling head over heels for her next door neighbor's son, Cam, who is home from the military. These feelings for Cam might just be her undoing!
I will say that I loved the plot for Almost Just Friends. Everything about it felt very realistic and like something that happens almost every day in small town America. I enjoyed the love story between Cam and Piper and how it took its time developing instead of just being instalove. I also enjoyed the narrative between Piper and her siblings. I could picture every single scene in my mind quite clearly thanks to Jill Shalvis' fantastic story telling! Almost Just Friends answered all my questions by the end of the book, and there were no cliffhangers which I was thankful for.
I enjoyed every single character in Almost Just Friends. They all brought their own personality to the table, and they were each very interesting to read about. All of the characters in this novel felt like they could be someone I could relate to as well as making fantastic friends. Piper starts off being too self reliant. It was nice to see her start letting others help her. She was forced to grow up at a young age after the death of her parents, so I could understand why she was scared of losing control and putting faith in other people. I loved how patient Cam was with Piper. He was so loving and helpful. It was also nice to see him blending in so well with Piper's siblings and wanting to help out. Cam was such a charming man with such a larger than life personality. Gavin, Piper's brother, had been fighting his own demons. I kept wondering if he'd go back to his own ways or not. I loved his relationship with CJ and how he wasn't going to let CJ walk away from him so easily. Gavin always was great at relieving tense and awkward situations which one thing I really loved about him! Winnie, Piper's sister, was the youngest out of Piper, Gavin, and herself. Winnie decided it was time for her to start being more adult like instead of child like. Her news was the biggest, in my opinion, and while I could understand why she wanted to keep it from Piper, I wish she would have told Piper from the get go. However, Winnie had me smiling whenever I read about her. I admired her tenacity to want to be Miss Fix It. Emmit, Cam's dad, was ever the comedian! I loved how happy go lucky he was and his sunny disposition on life was. It was as if nothing ever bothered him, and I admired that about him. Every single character in Almost Just Friends made it such a fantastic read!
Trigger warnings for Almost Just Friends include profanity, some sexual situations (although nothing too graphic), death, and mentions of prescription drug abuse.
All in all, Almost Just Friends is such a heartwarming read with a fantastic set of characters and a solid plot. This was my first book I read by Jill Shalvis, but it certainly won't be my last! I would definitely recommend Almost Just Friends by Jill Shalvis to those aged 17+ who are after an uplifting novel that deals with family with a sweet romance thrown in.
--
(A special thank you to William Morrow with a paperback of Almost Just Friends by Jill Shalvis in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2020
Inventive, funny and poignant
Writer/Director/Actor Taika Waititi is one of the most original voices working in Film/Television today. He skewered the Vampire flick (at the height of the Twilight craze) in WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS. He revived the sagging Thor saga (and some would say the Marvel Cinematic Universe) with a comedic approach to the material in THOR: RAGNAROK, and now with his latest film, JOJO RABBIT, he takes his sense of humor to a subject that is difficult to satire - Adolph Hitler and life in Nazi Germany during WW II.
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
As seen through the eyes of a zealous 10 year old Hitler Youth named JoJo, this film follows Jojo's journey from an idealistic follower of all things Nazi Germany to the harsher realities of the world - and what the 3rd Reich means to the world.
Young Roman Griffin Davis does a marvelous job as the titular character slowly changing his character from an all out innocent devotion to Hitler (his imaginary friend as played by Waititi) to a somewhat less innocent soul. His journey is at the heart of this film and he is a winning personality to follow along with. I was drawn into his struggles and was rooting for him to "come to his senses" throughout the course of this film.
Helping him in this journey is his Mother, played in an Oscar nominated turn by Scarlett Johannson. This character has an idealism all of her own and is willing to let her child "get there in his own time". It is a strong turn by Johannson...but Oscar nominated worthy? I'm not sure.
Also joining in for fun, frolic and (by turns) seriousness is the always great Sam Rockwell (Oscar winner for 3 BILLBOARDS...)as a disillusioned German Officer, comedian Stephen Merchant (LOGAN) in an unlikely mostly serious turn as a Nazi who likes to say "Heil Hitler" and Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) as a devoted German soldier (at least devoted to Rockwell's character). Waititi also uses Rebel Wilson sparingly - as she should be used - as another devouted-to-the-cause German citizen.
Adding heft and pathos to this film is Thomasin MacKenzie (THE KING) in a role that would be a spoiler to say what she is playing, but...I WILL say that she needs to succeed in this role for the film to succeed (and she does).
Also, special notice needs to be made of the performance of cherubic Archie Yates (soon to be Kevin in the reboot of the HOME ALONE franchise) as JoJo's friend Yorki - who keeps getting knocked down and steps back up over and over again. I would LOVE to see the film that would have focused on this character (in addition to this film).
And, finally, there is the Writer/Director himself, Taika Waititi as JoJo's imaginary friend, Adolph Hitler. He is all fun loving and gay at the beginning becoming more and more frantic as the film progresses - mimicking the real life events that are happening around him.
Waititi's style in this film is reminiscent of Wes Anderson in such films as THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL and MOONRISE KINGDOM and this works well here, giving this film more of a "fable" than a "realistic" look - and that is important to help set the tone for the events that follow. Waititi has a sure hand on the material (that he wrote) as the Director. He knows the tone he wants to strike and knows how to get there. He is nominated for Adapted Screenplay for his script (deservedly so) and was NOT nominated for Best Director - but his work in this area is just as good.
I did not know what to expect from this film when I walked into it, and I was more than pleasantly surprised. Give this little comedy/drama a try - I think you will be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
As seen through the eyes of a zealous 10 year old Hitler Youth named JoJo, this film follows Jojo's journey from an idealistic follower of all things Nazi Germany to the harsher realities of the world - and what the 3rd Reich means to the world.
Young Roman Griffin Davis does a marvelous job as the titular character slowly changing his character from an all out innocent devotion to Hitler (his imaginary friend as played by Waititi) to a somewhat less innocent soul. His journey is at the heart of this film and he is a winning personality to follow along with. I was drawn into his struggles and was rooting for him to "come to his senses" throughout the course of this film.
Helping him in this journey is his Mother, played in an Oscar nominated turn by Scarlett Johannson. This character has an idealism all of her own and is willing to let her child "get there in his own time". It is a strong turn by Johannson...but Oscar nominated worthy? I'm not sure.
Also joining in for fun, frolic and (by turns) seriousness is the always great Sam Rockwell (Oscar winner for 3 BILLBOARDS...)as a disillusioned German Officer, comedian Stephen Merchant (LOGAN) in an unlikely mostly serious turn as a Nazi who likes to say "Heil Hitler" and Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) as a devoted German soldier (at least devoted to Rockwell's character). Waititi also uses Rebel Wilson sparingly - as she should be used - as another devouted-to-the-cause German citizen.
Adding heft and pathos to this film is Thomasin MacKenzie (THE KING) in a role that would be a spoiler to say what she is playing, but...I WILL say that she needs to succeed in this role for the film to succeed (and she does).
Also, special notice needs to be made of the performance of cherubic Archie Yates (soon to be Kevin in the reboot of the HOME ALONE franchise) as JoJo's friend Yorki - who keeps getting knocked down and steps back up over and over again. I would LOVE to see the film that would have focused on this character (in addition to this film).
And, finally, there is the Writer/Director himself, Taika Waititi as JoJo's imaginary friend, Adolph Hitler. He is all fun loving and gay at the beginning becoming more and more frantic as the film progresses - mimicking the real life events that are happening around him.
Waititi's style in this film is reminiscent of Wes Anderson in such films as THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL and MOONRISE KINGDOM and this works well here, giving this film more of a "fable" than a "realistic" look - and that is important to help set the tone for the events that follow. Waititi has a sure hand on the material (that he wrote) as the Director. He knows the tone he wants to strike and knows how to get there. He is nominated for Adapted Screenplay for his script (deservedly so) and was NOT nominated for Best Director - but his work in this area is just as good.
I did not know what to expect from this film when I walked into it, and I was more than pleasantly surprised. Give this little comedy/drama a try - I think you will be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)