Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
Bland with the exception of Christopher Plummer
By now, almost everyone knows about the last minute switch of Christopher Plummer in place of current-pariah Kevin Spacey as pivotal Billionaire J. Paul Getty in Ridley Scott's ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, so when I checked out Plummer's Oscar nominated turn, I couldn't but help see if I could tell when Scott put in a new scene and where he just "augmented" his scenes with Plummer. And then, a funny thing happened...
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated See how they run (2022) in Movies
Dec 8, 2022
Despite a miscast Sam Rockwell - it works well...enough
The British Comedy/Murder Mystery SEE HOW THEY RUN came and went in movie theaters (at least in the U.S.) pretty quickly last fall and, consequently, most folks missed that this was even a thing.
The good news is that it is now streaming on multiple streaming services so as people gather for the Holidays there is a fun, family friendly (but good for adults) film that young and old alike could gather around the TV to watch together.
Written by Mark Chappell and Directed by Tom George (both of whom who have quite a few BBC TV Series under their belts, but it looks like this is the Major Motion Picture debut for them both), SEE HOW THEY RUN is a comedic look at the British Murder Mystery with a frumpy detective, a victim who “deserved it” and a plethora of potential suspects who are all brought into a room by the Detective on a “dark and stormy” night to reveal “whodunnit”.
Normally, with these types of films, it comes down to the casting and while there are some very good - and fun - actors in many of the roles, one of the roles is terribly miscast and that brings down the quality of this film quite a bit.
So, let’s start with what works - the central murder mystery is clever…enough…(for this sort of thing) and is wonderfully constructed around the London Stage debut of the long-running Agatha Christie murder mystery play THE MOUSETRAP in the 1950’s and, thus, this film is a period piece and that atmosphere adds - in a positive way - to the look and feel of this movie.
Saoirse Ronan, as always, is very good as the young Policewoman who is brought in to aide the main detective and proves out to be quite the Detective herself. She really holds this film together tightly in the middle. Adrien Brody, Ruth Wilson, David Oyelowo and Harris Dickinson all bring something to the film in their characters (and suspects) that add color and life to the central mystery.
Unfortunately, the usually good Sam Rockwell is miscast as the lead sleuth on this case. His frumpy, disheveled Detective was reminiscent of Columbo and just didn’t fit in this British Murder Mystery. While this performance is not a distraction to this film, it doesn’t elevate or lift this movie either, and - in a murder mystery - the detective solving the mystery is a major cog in the movie machine and this cog just isn’t that interesting.
Rockwell is not helped by a green Director and Writer who are looking to make the leap from television to film and this film feels more like a made for TV film, than a major motion picture.
Which is why this film is a good one to catch on one of the streaming services it is currently on. It is a fun enough film that will entertain young and old alike over the Holidays.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The good news is that it is now streaming on multiple streaming services so as people gather for the Holidays there is a fun, family friendly (but good for adults) film that young and old alike could gather around the TV to watch together.
Written by Mark Chappell and Directed by Tom George (both of whom who have quite a few BBC TV Series under their belts, but it looks like this is the Major Motion Picture debut for them both), SEE HOW THEY RUN is a comedic look at the British Murder Mystery with a frumpy detective, a victim who “deserved it” and a plethora of potential suspects who are all brought into a room by the Detective on a “dark and stormy” night to reveal “whodunnit”.
Normally, with these types of films, it comes down to the casting and while there are some very good - and fun - actors in many of the roles, one of the roles is terribly miscast and that brings down the quality of this film quite a bit.
So, let’s start with what works - the central murder mystery is clever…enough…(for this sort of thing) and is wonderfully constructed around the London Stage debut of the long-running Agatha Christie murder mystery play THE MOUSETRAP in the 1950’s and, thus, this film is a period piece and that atmosphere adds - in a positive way - to the look and feel of this movie.
Saoirse Ronan, as always, is very good as the young Policewoman who is brought in to aide the main detective and proves out to be quite the Detective herself. She really holds this film together tightly in the middle. Adrien Brody, Ruth Wilson, David Oyelowo and Harris Dickinson all bring something to the film in their characters (and suspects) that add color and life to the central mystery.
Unfortunately, the usually good Sam Rockwell is miscast as the lead sleuth on this case. His frumpy, disheveled Detective was reminiscent of Columbo and just didn’t fit in this British Murder Mystery. While this performance is not a distraction to this film, it doesn’t elevate or lift this movie either, and - in a murder mystery - the detective solving the mystery is a major cog in the movie machine and this cog just isn’t that interesting.
Rockwell is not helped by a green Director and Writer who are looking to make the leap from television to film and this film feels more like a made for TV film, than a major motion picture.
Which is why this film is a good one to catch on one of the streaming services it is currently on. It is a fun enough film that will entertain young and old alike over the Holidays.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 21, 2018
For the "true" Potter fan
It is a misnomer to call FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD a "Harry Potter" movie. True, it is a film that takes place in the "Harry Potter-verse", but it should, more accurately, be called an "Albus Dumbledore" movie.
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Life after Gravity.
Mankind is on the verge of a major milestone. The “Pilgrim” probe is returning from Mars containing soil samples that might spell the discovery of the first palpable evidence of life beyond earth. Proving that earth scientists are not completely incompetent, the probe is being returned not to earth but to a lab on the International Space Station where strict quarantine can be maintained. This key mission requirement is the responsibility of Miranda North (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation”). Supporting her is an international crew including fellow doctor David Harris (Jake Gyllenhaal, “Source Code”), professional astronaut Rory Adams (Ryan Reynolds, “Deadpool”) and Hugh Derry (Ariyon Bakare), the lead scientist studying the samples. Needless to say, the soil samples yield more promise than Derry could have ever hoped for (or North could have feared). A crisis of growth and death ensues in a manner that fans of “Alien” will be suitably familiar with. Can the crew survive against all the odds?
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors with a raft of quality films in his CV such as “Nightcrawler” and last year’s hugely underrated (and almost Oscar-ignored) “Nocturnal Animals”. Rebecca Ferguson is also a class act and one of my favourite actresses of the moment. Here they are starring together for the first time and they don’t disappoint. Whilst neither gets enough quality screentime to really hammer their roles home, both connect to the audience in different ways: Harris is heading for an ISS endurance record, and starting to mentally disconnect from earthly connections as his body also starts to atrophy. North, with a clear attraction to him, tries to hold both him and everything together with steely determination, while carrying more knowledge of the mission directives than anyone else has.
The supporting ensemble cast also work well, portraying a real mixture of nationalities from the cock-sure American played by Reynolds to the sultry Russian commander Golovkina, played by the lovely Olga Dihovichnaya. A special note should also be added in the margin for one of the most surprising portrayals of a disabled character in a recent film.
Unfortunately the material the actors get to deliver, by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (co-writers of “Deadpool” and “Zombieland”) doesn’t match their ability. The first 30 minutes or so of the film I found to be totally gripping, but even here some of the dialogue is sufficiently clunky to distract you from the ongoing narrative. Some of the rest of the dialogue becomes head-in-the-hands awful in places: a scene during a de-pressurization episode being particularly painful.
Some dodgy dialogue might be forgivable in an action movie if supported by a strong story. Unfortunately, while the premise of the film is sound (if not original), the story leaps from inconsistency to inconsistency from beginning to end. The writers never seem to settle on whether the ‘being’ needs oxygen, likes oxygen, likes hot, likes cold, etc. and this lack of credibility distracts from the whole film. While the screenplay delivers some seriously suspenseful moments, and some decent jump scares, this is not satisfactory enough to serve up a cohesive movie meal.
This is not helped by ‘bad science’. As I have commented upon before, I’m a physicist by training and unscientific scenes annoy me to distraction. I’ve had to learn to live with the basics of explosions and other ‘noise’ in space (something “Star Wars” started 40 years ago, damn those TIE fighters). But there is a scene in “Life” involving an airlock breach that just completely beggers belief, acted out as if it’s a stiff breeze on the front at Skegness! It’s almost – (almost) – as bonkers as the ‘reactor venting’ scene with Chris Pratt in “Passengers“.
However, the film has its strong points too. Like “Gravity”, this is another special effects triumph with the scenes outside the ISS being gorgeously rendered. “Gravity” was a clear 10/10; this is probably at least a 7, and a reason for seeing the film on the big screen. A key question though is why there wasn’t a 3D version of the film released? Heaven knows I’m no fan of 3D, but “Gravity” was one of the few films that was genuinely enhanced by the format: in fact it is currently the only 3D Blu-ray that I own!
In general, the whole film seems a little half-cocked and lacking in its own conviction. You wonder whether the production company (Skydance) got rather cold-feet about the film in releasing it when it did. Yes, “Deadpool” did very well with its February release, but this is a much more suitable film for a summer audience than a release in this post-Oscars doldrums.
In summary, its a moderately entertaining watch, but at heart just another retelling of the old ‘something nasty in the woodshed’ yarn that we’ve seen played out countless times before. Here though the swanky setting and special effects are diminished by a lack of credibility and consistency in the storytelling. Redemption was on hand though, for while it was heading for a middling 3-Fad rating, it managed to salvage another half Fad in the final 60 seconds: a memorable movie ending that might prove hard to beat during 2017.
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors with a raft of quality films in his CV such as “Nightcrawler” and last year’s hugely underrated (and almost Oscar-ignored) “Nocturnal Animals”. Rebecca Ferguson is also a class act and one of my favourite actresses of the moment. Here they are starring together for the first time and they don’t disappoint. Whilst neither gets enough quality screentime to really hammer their roles home, both connect to the audience in different ways: Harris is heading for an ISS endurance record, and starting to mentally disconnect from earthly connections as his body also starts to atrophy. North, with a clear attraction to him, tries to hold both him and everything together with steely determination, while carrying more knowledge of the mission directives than anyone else has.
The supporting ensemble cast also work well, portraying a real mixture of nationalities from the cock-sure American played by Reynolds to the sultry Russian commander Golovkina, played by the lovely Olga Dihovichnaya. A special note should also be added in the margin for one of the most surprising portrayals of a disabled character in a recent film.
Unfortunately the material the actors get to deliver, by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (co-writers of “Deadpool” and “Zombieland”) doesn’t match their ability. The first 30 minutes or so of the film I found to be totally gripping, but even here some of the dialogue is sufficiently clunky to distract you from the ongoing narrative. Some of the rest of the dialogue becomes head-in-the-hands awful in places: a scene during a de-pressurization episode being particularly painful.
Some dodgy dialogue might be forgivable in an action movie if supported by a strong story. Unfortunately, while the premise of the film is sound (if not original), the story leaps from inconsistency to inconsistency from beginning to end. The writers never seem to settle on whether the ‘being’ needs oxygen, likes oxygen, likes hot, likes cold, etc. and this lack of credibility distracts from the whole film. While the screenplay delivers some seriously suspenseful moments, and some decent jump scares, this is not satisfactory enough to serve up a cohesive movie meal.
This is not helped by ‘bad science’. As I have commented upon before, I’m a physicist by training and unscientific scenes annoy me to distraction. I’ve had to learn to live with the basics of explosions and other ‘noise’ in space (something “Star Wars” started 40 years ago, damn those TIE fighters). But there is a scene in “Life” involving an airlock breach that just completely beggers belief, acted out as if it’s a stiff breeze on the front at Skegness! It’s almost – (almost) – as bonkers as the ‘reactor venting’ scene with Chris Pratt in “Passengers“.
However, the film has its strong points too. Like “Gravity”, this is another special effects triumph with the scenes outside the ISS being gorgeously rendered. “Gravity” was a clear 10/10; this is probably at least a 7, and a reason for seeing the film on the big screen. A key question though is why there wasn’t a 3D version of the film released? Heaven knows I’m no fan of 3D, but “Gravity” was one of the few films that was genuinely enhanced by the format: in fact it is currently the only 3D Blu-ray that I own!
In general, the whole film seems a little half-cocked and lacking in its own conviction. You wonder whether the production company (Skydance) got rather cold-feet about the film in releasing it when it did. Yes, “Deadpool” did very well with its February release, but this is a much more suitable film for a summer audience than a release in this post-Oscars doldrums.
In summary, its a moderately entertaining watch, but at heart just another retelling of the old ‘something nasty in the woodshed’ yarn that we’ve seen played out countless times before. Here though the swanky setting and special effects are diminished by a lack of credibility and consistency in the storytelling. Redemption was on hand though, for while it was heading for a middling 3-Fad rating, it managed to salvage another half Fad in the final 60 seconds: a memorable movie ending that might prove hard to beat during 2017.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Nov 14, 2019
This sort of soft reboot of Hellboy is a truly mixed bag. It's just about watchable, and there are some things I liked, and a whole heap of things I didn't like.
Let's start with the negatives - the absolute biggest problems with Hellboy is the editing and pacing.
The quick cuts and bizzarre transitions that happen often are incredibly jarring, and stops the narrative running smoothly for much of the duration.
It almost feels as if the film has been designed for someone who gets bored easily, and will shoehorn in a new scene before giving you the chance to take in the previous one.
It also plays havoc with a lot of the already mediocre (and sometimes cringe-worthy) script - a good example of this comes right at the beginning, as Hellboy is introduced us, searching for an MIA fellow agent.... Its here that Ian McShane's character explains to Hellboy over the phone, what this agent was doing when he went missing, only for Hellboy to himself repeat it to another character seconds later - it's weird and feels lazy.
Another issue is something I seem to complain about a lot recently - CGI. A lot of the CGI throughout is not great, and it's again, a complete mixed bag. Some of the practical effects look fine. The big demons glimpsed in the trailer look fine. And then everywhere else it just shits the bed, most glaringly when it comes to Ben Daimio, a character from the comics who should be an exciting inclusion, but is dragged down buy just how awful it looks.
Another thing I also disliked was the insistence of having 'cool' rock songs playing every two minutes, especially in fight scenes that would otherwise have been entertaining. At times, it felt like I was watching Suicide Squad all over again, which is never a good thing.
A lot of the acting throughout Hellboy is also stale and unenthused. Milla Jovovich is particularly uninspiring as The Blood Queen (a villain from the comics that never enthralled me in the first place), Daniel Dae Kim (Ben Daimio) and Sasha Lane (Alice Monaghan) just seem embarrassed to be involved at all.
This does bring me on to the things a liked about Hellboy though - David Harbour won me over pretty quickly as the titular half demon, he provides the movies sparse humour, and the make up work is great - he does his absolute best to hold it all together.
Ian McShane is good also, but come on, it's Ian McShane man.
Even if they aren't represented perfectly, I still liked seeing a lot of characters from the comic book, and my love for Lobster Johnson is strong.
The monster designs are pretty great for the most part, Baba Yaga looks skin crawling, and as I said, the big demons seen in the trailers are pretty horrifying.
The violence and gore is unfortunately, mostly CGI, but is pretty effective for the most part, even if it does feel like the movie is sometimes packing in an R rating to disguise the averageness of everything else.
As mentioned above, some of the action pieces are pretty fun, but I must say, the climax of the movie is pretty underwhelming.
I didn't find Hellboy as horrible as some people made it out to be - it's certainly not as good as the original two films (although I find the first one to be quite average as it is!) but it still has some credibility, even if it's a small amount.
Unfortunately, for every step Hellboy takes forward, it's takes two back, resulting in a messy and muddled film that struggles to find an identity, and it's reeks of studio meddling.
Still though, Big Mo Harris shooting an Uzi is always a pleasure 👍
Let's start with the negatives - the absolute biggest problems with Hellboy is the editing and pacing.
The quick cuts and bizzarre transitions that happen often are incredibly jarring, and stops the narrative running smoothly for much of the duration.
It almost feels as if the film has been designed for someone who gets bored easily, and will shoehorn in a new scene before giving you the chance to take in the previous one.
It also plays havoc with a lot of the already mediocre (and sometimes cringe-worthy) script - a good example of this comes right at the beginning, as Hellboy is introduced us, searching for an MIA fellow agent.... Its here that Ian McShane's character explains to Hellboy over the phone, what this agent was doing when he went missing, only for Hellboy to himself repeat it to another character seconds later - it's weird and feels lazy.
Another issue is something I seem to complain about a lot recently - CGI. A lot of the CGI throughout is not great, and it's again, a complete mixed bag. Some of the practical effects look fine. The big demons glimpsed in the trailer look fine. And then everywhere else it just shits the bed, most glaringly when it comes to Ben Daimio, a character from the comics who should be an exciting inclusion, but is dragged down buy just how awful it looks.
Another thing I also disliked was the insistence of having 'cool' rock songs playing every two minutes, especially in fight scenes that would otherwise have been entertaining. At times, it felt like I was watching Suicide Squad all over again, which is never a good thing.
A lot of the acting throughout Hellboy is also stale and unenthused. Milla Jovovich is particularly uninspiring as The Blood Queen (a villain from the comics that never enthralled me in the first place), Daniel Dae Kim (Ben Daimio) and Sasha Lane (Alice Monaghan) just seem embarrassed to be involved at all.
This does bring me on to the things a liked about Hellboy though - David Harbour won me over pretty quickly as the titular half demon, he provides the movies sparse humour, and the make up work is great - he does his absolute best to hold it all together.
Ian McShane is good also, but come on, it's Ian McShane man.
Even if they aren't represented perfectly, I still liked seeing a lot of characters from the comic book, and my love for Lobster Johnson is strong.
The monster designs are pretty great for the most part, Baba Yaga looks skin crawling, and as I said, the big demons seen in the trailers are pretty horrifying.
The violence and gore is unfortunately, mostly CGI, but is pretty effective for the most part, even if it does feel like the movie is sometimes packing in an R rating to disguise the averageness of everything else.
As mentioned above, some of the action pieces are pretty fun, but I must say, the climax of the movie is pretty underwhelming.
I didn't find Hellboy as horrible as some people made it out to be - it's certainly not as good as the original two films (although I find the first one to be quite average as it is!) but it still has some credibility, even if it's a small amount.
Unfortunately, for every step Hellboy takes forward, it's takes two back, resulting in a messy and muddled film that struggles to find an identity, and it's reeks of studio meddling.
Still though, Big Mo Harris shooting an Uzi is always a pleasure 👍
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021 (Updated Oct 10, 2021)
What a wait it’s been for Bond 25! But Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond is finally here and I thought it was great! It has all the elements of Bond… but perhaps not as we traditionally know it.
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
