Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Call Of The Wild (2020) in Movies
Mar 1, 2020
When they announced Call of the Wild with Harrison Ford I was onboard, then they said they were CGIing the dog and I became expressionless. I understood how some bits would need to be CGId... but the whole dog? I WANT FLOOFS!
An excitable family pet gets taken to the wilds of the Yukon and sold as a sled dog. Along the way he makes new friends and learns about the call of the wild... I know, you'd never have guessed from the title of the film!
Let's deal with the giant dog in the room first. It's difficult to express my exact feelings about the CGI in the film, yes it isn't great, but by the end of the film [well, quite early on] I didn't care. Buck has so many personality traits and goofball moments that you know he must be CGI but it really doesn't matter. A lot of the things on screen I'm sure you would see in a real dog, but you can't put them through the same actions as their computer-generated counterparts. The opening sequence with Buck running through the house was cartoonish and daft, and while I rolled my eyes it was one of the many funny moments that happened throughout the film. You just acclimatise to the whole thing and forget that Buck isn't real.
While the humans take a back seat to Buck's adventures most of the time they're still great on screen. Omar Sy and Cara Gee as Perrault and Françoise make a great duo, and Sy with Buck has some very fun pieces. His reaction to the dogs feels very natural and the ice scene you briefly see in the trailer was a strong moment for everyone involved.
Dan Stevens playing Hal is the villain of the piece and his whole performance reminds me of a classic animated Disney villain, a cross between things from Lady and the Tramp, Beauty and the Beast and 101 Dalmations. There's a very specific maniacal villain in my head but I can't remember who or what film and it's driving me nuts! [Do let me know if you know!] By the end of the film though I was bothered more by his cartoonish acting than I was by the CG.
Our main pull was, of course, Harrison Ford. I don't know how John Thornton is portrayed in the book but the one in this film is a very relaxed character that only occasionally has to step it up. It isn't much of a stretched for Ford, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone told me he wasn't even acting.
This is peak adventure, with excitement, peril and humour. The whole audience was reacting, and it was wonderful. Having gone in prepared to be annoyed the whole way through I was amazed at just how much I laughed and cried, and how exhilarating they managed to make things. Call of the Wild was a delightful watch, dubious CGI and all.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-call-of-wild-movie-review.html
An excitable family pet gets taken to the wilds of the Yukon and sold as a sled dog. Along the way he makes new friends and learns about the call of the wild... I know, you'd never have guessed from the title of the film!
Let's deal with the giant dog in the room first. It's difficult to express my exact feelings about the CGI in the film, yes it isn't great, but by the end of the film [well, quite early on] I didn't care. Buck has so many personality traits and goofball moments that you know he must be CGI but it really doesn't matter. A lot of the things on screen I'm sure you would see in a real dog, but you can't put them through the same actions as their computer-generated counterparts. The opening sequence with Buck running through the house was cartoonish and daft, and while I rolled my eyes it was one of the many funny moments that happened throughout the film. You just acclimatise to the whole thing and forget that Buck isn't real.
While the humans take a back seat to Buck's adventures most of the time they're still great on screen. Omar Sy and Cara Gee as Perrault and Françoise make a great duo, and Sy with Buck has some very fun pieces. His reaction to the dogs feels very natural and the ice scene you briefly see in the trailer was a strong moment for everyone involved.
Dan Stevens playing Hal is the villain of the piece and his whole performance reminds me of a classic animated Disney villain, a cross between things from Lady and the Tramp, Beauty and the Beast and 101 Dalmations. There's a very specific maniacal villain in my head but I can't remember who or what film and it's driving me nuts! [Do let me know if you know!] By the end of the film though I was bothered more by his cartoonish acting than I was by the CG.
Our main pull was, of course, Harrison Ford. I don't know how John Thornton is portrayed in the book but the one in this film is a very relaxed character that only occasionally has to step it up. It isn't much of a stretched for Ford, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone told me he wasn't even acting.
This is peak adventure, with excitement, peril and humour. The whole audience was reacting, and it was wonderful. Having gone in prepared to be annoyed the whole way through I was amazed at just how much I laughed and cried, and how exhilarating they managed to make things. Call of the Wild was a delightful watch, dubious CGI and all.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-call-of-wild-movie-review.html
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Call Of The Wild (2020) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020 (Updated Feb 23, 2020)
A Sheep In Wolf's Clothing
Call Of The Wild is such a lovely heartfelt movie that will leave everyone that goes to see it with that warm tingly feeling inside their chest and a nice big smile on thier face. Ive seen this film is getting a lot of hate because of its over reliance on cgi animals and while I will admit I found it very distracting to start with after 10 minutes I became accustom and think the movie is much better for using it. Why you ask? well the movie to me is obviously aimed at children and the over all feel of it to me was very much like a classic Disney animated cartoon. Let me explain, theres just something so lovely, peaceful and magical about the whole thing and the way its structured, how exaggerated the characters are, the world it builds and the story. See they all just all come together to give you those same feelings you had when you watched a fairytale like beauty and the beast for the first time. Having the dog be cgi lets him have more cartoonish/exaggerated animations and a way more expressive face really helps us to relate to him better, clearly see how hes feeling and to add to this constant sense of warmth/magic thats present throughout. Theres also a fantastic sense of adventure here and the film uses stunning locations to constantly wow us and keep us in this picturesque perfect dream or tranquil fantasy kind of state. Harrison ford is splendid here playing a lonely man whos almost given up hope of being truly happy until Buck comes along. His perfomance is so touching and you can clearly hear in his Blade Runner style narrations the sadness and pain in his heart which immediately helps you to feel sympathy towards him. Bucks story is equally as sad too, he longs to be part of a pack/family of his own and to one day become a leader answering to no one but himself. His motivations are shown in the form of a powerful and strong black wolf that keeps his confidence up and his determination strong and theres so many messages about never giving up, pushing forward and trusting in your destiny too that its hard not to become fully engrossed in his journey. It may be a simple tale but its an absolute joy to watch and its motivational themes are guaranteed to make anyone think positively about thier own life while watching. I also can not go without mentioning Dan Stevens, boy is this guy talented. His acting here is devilishly cartoonish, over the top wicked and had me grinning constantly in pure delight. Call Of The Wild is an all out beautiful, fun, adorable and exciting adventure for all the family to enjoy and I can not wait till it comes out to buy on 4k.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….