Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Sep 26, 2018
Waste of idea, talent and my time
If I was to show future generations a prototypical 1980's "Machismo, Blood and Guts Action Flick", I would pull the original 1987 PREDATOR (starring good ol' Arnold Schwarzenegger) off my dusty shelves and show this to them. It is a film so "of it's time".
In subsequent years, there have been more films that attempted to use the Predator character - PREDATOR 2 (1990), AVP: ALIENS VS. PREDATOR (2004), ALIENS VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM (2007) and PREDATORS (2010) - all disappointing. All failing to equal the balance of machismo, action and humor that is needed.
So...it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to THE PREDATOR, a new film written and directed by Shane Black (KISS KISS BANG BANG, IRON MAN 3, THE NICE GUYS) - one of the actors in the 1987 flick!
And...I was disappointed again.
This film fails because it never really got a grip on just what type of film it wanted to be - is it a Sci-Fi film? Is it an Action film? A buddy flick? A gore fest? A look at Autism? Black's script and direction spreads all these items out on the picnic blanket that is this film and then intermittently picks each one of these up to show us - sometimes a couple of them - like a kid trying to decide whether he wants the chips or the hot dogs or the Oreo cookies and just shoves them all in his mouth together.
And that's too bad, for Black has an interesting premise - rival Predators battling on Earth - with a ragtag group of Earthlings thrown in the middle - and what a "ragtag" group they are! Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHTING), Thomas Jane (THE MIST), Keegan-Michael Key (KEY & PEELE), Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) and Augusto Aguilera (CHASING LIFE) make an intriguing band of misfit soldiers that easily could have been an equal to Arnold's ragtag group of soldiers from the 1987 original.
Unfortunately, they are the "back-up band" to the boring Boyd Holbrook (NARCOS) and Olivia Munn (X-MEN: APOCALYPSE) as a couple thrown together to defend Holbrook's Autistic son (Jacob Tremblay - so good in ROOM and wasted here) in a by-the-book "they hate each other when they first meet, so - naturally - they'll fall in love by the end" plot contrivance that doesn't work at all.
Add on top of that Sterling K. Brown (THIS IS US) as a "mysterious" Gov't Agent who is so much of a bad guy, all he was missing was a mustache twirl and the missed opportunities of actors such as Yvonne Stahovski (THE HANDMAID'S TALE) and NIall Matter (EUREKA) who both just stand around and do nothing. They even cast Jake Busey (Gary's kid) - who would be the perfect "over-the-top" bad guy for this sort of film, but...he is just misdirection and wasted as well.
What a wasted effort, a wasted opportunity and a waste of my time.
Letter Grade C_+: The ragtag group of soldiers were at least fun to watch (give Thomas Jane and Keegan-Michael Key their own "buddy" picture)!
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
In subsequent years, there have been more films that attempted to use the Predator character - PREDATOR 2 (1990), AVP: ALIENS VS. PREDATOR (2004), ALIENS VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM (2007) and PREDATORS (2010) - all disappointing. All failing to equal the balance of machismo, action and humor that is needed.
So...it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to THE PREDATOR, a new film written and directed by Shane Black (KISS KISS BANG BANG, IRON MAN 3, THE NICE GUYS) - one of the actors in the 1987 flick!
And...I was disappointed again.
This film fails because it never really got a grip on just what type of film it wanted to be - is it a Sci-Fi film? Is it an Action film? A buddy flick? A gore fest? A look at Autism? Black's script and direction spreads all these items out on the picnic blanket that is this film and then intermittently picks each one of these up to show us - sometimes a couple of them - like a kid trying to decide whether he wants the chips or the hot dogs or the Oreo cookies and just shoves them all in his mouth together.
And that's too bad, for Black has an interesting premise - rival Predators battling on Earth - with a ragtag group of Earthlings thrown in the middle - and what a "ragtag" group they are! Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHTING), Thomas Jane (THE MIST), Keegan-Michael Key (KEY & PEELE), Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) and Augusto Aguilera (CHASING LIFE) make an intriguing band of misfit soldiers that easily could have been an equal to Arnold's ragtag group of soldiers from the 1987 original.
Unfortunately, they are the "back-up band" to the boring Boyd Holbrook (NARCOS) and Olivia Munn (X-MEN: APOCALYPSE) as a couple thrown together to defend Holbrook's Autistic son (Jacob Tremblay - so good in ROOM and wasted here) in a by-the-book "they hate each other when they first meet, so - naturally - they'll fall in love by the end" plot contrivance that doesn't work at all.
Add on top of that Sterling K. Brown (THIS IS US) as a "mysterious" Gov't Agent who is so much of a bad guy, all he was missing was a mustache twirl and the missed opportunities of actors such as Yvonne Stahovski (THE HANDMAID'S TALE) and NIall Matter (EUREKA) who both just stand around and do nothing. They even cast Jake Busey (Gary's kid) - who would be the perfect "over-the-top" bad guy for this sort of film, but...he is just misdirection and wasted as well.
What a wasted effort, a wasted opportunity and a waste of my time.
Letter Grade C_+: The ragtag group of soldiers were at least fun to watch (give Thomas Jane and Keegan-Michael Key their own "buddy" picture)!
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated The Adventures of Pugalugs: The Beginning in Books
Jan 9, 2020
The Adventures of Pugalugs: The Beginning by Jessica Parish and with artwork by Helen Poole was amazing. This is the first in what the author hopes to be a set of over thirty books about a little pug puppy. These books are even based on a pugs real adventures. There are some Coming Soon titles on the inside of the book that I look forward to seeing because I have a lot of hope for this series.
Pugalugs is a pug puppy born in early November along with his brother and sister. Like many puppies he was so small he could fit in his owners hand when he was born. Most of the time Pugalugs spent his time cuddled up in a little bed with his siblings, all nice and warm, even if they did occasionally kick each other in the head. Then one day Pugalugs opens his eyes for the first time and the fun really begins.
He tries so many new things while exploring the seemingly huge house he lives in. While little puppies do sleep a lot he also tires puppy food for the first time and attempts to eat a slipper. He also slides across the kitchen floor and attempts to climb the staircase with his brothers help while his sister watches them. Then like all puppies (and children) do he imagines all the fun things he will be able to do outside when it is warm out and he is a little older and bigger.
What I like best is that the entire design is great for children. It contains a medium about of text on each page, but it is broken up into smaller sections. The bright, bold colors mixed with the simple artwork shows children exactly what the story is trying to tell them about without unnecessary details. The only thing I can think of to complain about regarding this book was the fact that two of the three puppies are the same color. Since one of these is the main character it may have been a good idea to give him a distinguishing characteristic besides saying that he is bigger than the other.
Toddlers who love animals, especially dogs will enjoy having this book read to them over and over again. It may also quickly become a favorite of the beginning reader. Adults will enjoy seeing their childrens reactions to the silly adventures of Pugalugs. With all that being said I rate this book a perfect 4 out of 4. Animals hold the attention of most children very well and this book takes full advantage of that. The story is so sweet while teaching children fun facts about puppies (such as being born with their eyes closed). It also may be interesting to note that both of my daughters, who I normally cant get to sit through the shortest book, sat with me until I finished reading the entire thing and then my oldest asked me to read it again. That alone is the best review I can give any book. Altogether this book is wonderful.
https://www.austinmacauley.com/book/adventures-pugalugs-beginning
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/2019/07/review-adventures-of-pugalugs-beginning.html
Pugalugs is a pug puppy born in early November along with his brother and sister. Like many puppies he was so small he could fit in his owners hand when he was born. Most of the time Pugalugs spent his time cuddled up in a little bed with his siblings, all nice and warm, even if they did occasionally kick each other in the head. Then one day Pugalugs opens his eyes for the first time and the fun really begins.
He tries so many new things while exploring the seemingly huge house he lives in. While little puppies do sleep a lot he also tires puppy food for the first time and attempts to eat a slipper. He also slides across the kitchen floor and attempts to climb the staircase with his brothers help while his sister watches them. Then like all puppies (and children) do he imagines all the fun things he will be able to do outside when it is warm out and he is a little older and bigger.
What I like best is that the entire design is great for children. It contains a medium about of text on each page, but it is broken up into smaller sections. The bright, bold colors mixed with the simple artwork shows children exactly what the story is trying to tell them about without unnecessary details. The only thing I can think of to complain about regarding this book was the fact that two of the three puppies are the same color. Since one of these is the main character it may have been a good idea to give him a distinguishing characteristic besides saying that he is bigger than the other.
Toddlers who love animals, especially dogs will enjoy having this book read to them over and over again. It may also quickly become a favorite of the beginning reader. Adults will enjoy seeing their childrens reactions to the silly adventures of Pugalugs. With all that being said I rate this book a perfect 4 out of 4. Animals hold the attention of most children very well and this book takes full advantage of that. The story is so sweet while teaching children fun facts about puppies (such as being born with their eyes closed). It also may be interesting to note that both of my daughters, who I normally cant get to sit through the shortest book, sat with me until I finished reading the entire thing and then my oldest asked me to read it again. That alone is the best review I can give any book. Altogether this book is wonderful.
https://www.austinmacauley.com/book/adventures-pugalugs-beginning
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/2019/07/review-adventures-of-pugalugs-beginning.html
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
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Fish Called Wanda (1988) in Movies
Jul 2, 2020
A Jolly Good Time
A member of my family mentioned when discussing the 1988 John Cleese comedy A FISH CALLED WANDA that you can tell much about a person over what part of this film that you like the most. Do you like:
a). The John Cleese/Jamie Lee Curtis love story
b). The "caper"
c). The beleaguered, unsuccessful hit-man Ken
d). The old lady and her 3 dogs
e). Kevin Kline as Otto
For me, that's easy - ALL OF IT! I find that A FISH CALLED WANDA is a very funny, richly acted comedy/caper that brings forth 4 characters that are easy to spend 2 hours with. Starting with John Cleese as Barrister Archie Leach. Cleese conceived, wrote, starred-in and (at times) directed this film and his "British humor" (honed from years as a member of the MONTY PYTHON comedy troupe) is in full force here. He has a reserved appearance about him that covers a wild man underneath yearning to break free.
Jamie Lee Curtis is quite good as the center of the film, Wanda Gershwitz, a cunning conman who will stop at nothing - and step over everyone - to get what she wants. I find that Curtis is under-rated as an actress and a comedienne and this picture shows that she can hold her own against 3 comedy greats at the top of their game.
The 2nd member of the Monty Python troupe to appear in this film is the remarkable Michael Palin as hapless hit-man, Ken. He becomes increasingly frustrated and frantic -and increasingly funny - as he attempts to complete his assignment throughout the course of this film.
But...the real star of this film...and the actor/character that steals the film away from everyone else...is Kevin Kline's Oscar winning performance as Otto, Wanda's erstwhile love who has a very high opinion of himself. It is rare that a comedic performance wins an Oscar - Kline's win is the the last one to do so - but it is easy to see why the Academy decided to reward Kline for it is a committed performance that is wild, wacky and over-the-top, but not overtly so. Kline has been very good in many other pictures/performances before and after this film, but he never reached the height that he reached in this film.
The film has veteran director Charles Crichton listed as Director with Cleese listed as co-Director (though Cleese insisted that Crichton did all the work and he only put his name on it to assuage the fears of studio executives over Crichton's advanced age). Well...Crichton does a wonderful job of letting the lunacy explode on the scene while keeping a lid on it and moving the action along at a brisk pace.
Wanda is one of those films that people remember fondly, but do not revisit. I would highly recommend you do, it's a jolly good time.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
a). The John Cleese/Jamie Lee Curtis love story
b). The "caper"
c). The beleaguered, unsuccessful hit-man Ken
d). The old lady and her 3 dogs
e). Kevin Kline as Otto
For me, that's easy - ALL OF IT! I find that A FISH CALLED WANDA is a very funny, richly acted comedy/caper that brings forth 4 characters that are easy to spend 2 hours with. Starting with John Cleese as Barrister Archie Leach. Cleese conceived, wrote, starred-in and (at times) directed this film and his "British humor" (honed from years as a member of the MONTY PYTHON comedy troupe) is in full force here. He has a reserved appearance about him that covers a wild man underneath yearning to break free.
Jamie Lee Curtis is quite good as the center of the film, Wanda Gershwitz, a cunning conman who will stop at nothing - and step over everyone - to get what she wants. I find that Curtis is under-rated as an actress and a comedienne and this picture shows that she can hold her own against 3 comedy greats at the top of their game.
The 2nd member of the Monty Python troupe to appear in this film is the remarkable Michael Palin as hapless hit-man, Ken. He becomes increasingly frustrated and frantic -and increasingly funny - as he attempts to complete his assignment throughout the course of this film.
But...the real star of this film...and the actor/character that steals the film away from everyone else...is Kevin Kline's Oscar winning performance as Otto, Wanda's erstwhile love who has a very high opinion of himself. It is rare that a comedic performance wins an Oscar - Kline's win is the the last one to do so - but it is easy to see why the Academy decided to reward Kline for it is a committed performance that is wild, wacky and over-the-top, but not overtly so. Kline has been very good in many other pictures/performances before and after this film, but he never reached the height that he reached in this film.
The film has veteran director Charles Crichton listed as Director with Cleese listed as co-Director (though Cleese insisted that Crichton did all the work and he only put his name on it to assuage the fears of studio executives over Crichton's advanced age). Well...Crichton does a wonderful job of letting the lunacy explode on the scene while keeping a lid on it and moving the action along at a brisk pace.
Wanda is one of those films that people remember fondly, but do not revisit. I would highly recommend you do, it's a jolly good time.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Clue (1985) in Movies
Nov 3, 2020
The Multiple Endings (2 more)
The Cast
The Humor
All Time Favorites
Ive seen Clue about nine times now and it has become a tradition to watch Clue every October. I remember watching clue the first time and i laughed my ass off and i still do that. The humor is excellent, the cast is excellent, the multiple endings are excellent. Everything about Clue is excellent.
The plot: Based on the popular board game, this comedy begins at a dinner party hosted by Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), where he admits to blackmailing his visitors. These guests, who have been given aliases, are Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) and Col. Mustard (Martin Mull). When Boddy turns up murdered, all are suspects, and together they try to figure out who is the killer.
The film was produced by Debra Hill and the story was by John Landis.
In keeping with the nature of the board game, the theatrical release included three possible endings, with different theaters receiving one of the three endings. In the film's home video release, all three endings were included.
The multiple-ending concept was developed by John Landis, who claimed in an interview to have invited playwright Tom Stoppard, writer and composer Stephen Sondheim, and actor Anthony Perkins to write the screenplay. The script was ultimately finished by director Jonathan Lynn.
A fourth ending was filmed, but Lynn removed it because as he later stated, "It really wasn't very good. I looked at it, and I thought, 'No, no, no, we've got to get rid of that.'" In the unused fourth ending, Wadsworth committed all of the murders. He was motivated by his desire for perfection. Having failed to be either the perfect husband or the perfect butler, he decided to be the perfect murderer instead. Wadsworth reports that he poisoned the champagne the guests had drunk earlier so they would soon die, leaving no witnesses. The police and the FBI arrive and Wadsworth is arrested. He breaks free and steals a police car, but his escape is thwarted when three police dogs lunge from the back seat. This ending is documented in Clue: The Storybook, a tie-in book released in conjunction with the film.
Carrie Fisher was originally contracted to portray Miss Scarlet, but withdrew to enter treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Jonathan Lynn's first choice for the role of Wadsworth was Leonard Rossiter, but he died before filming commenced. The second choice was Rowan Atkinson, but it was decided that he wasn't well known enough at the time, so Tim Curry was eventually cast.
Mrs. White's famous "Flames" speech was improvised by Madeline Kahn.
A documentary about the movie is being made, including interviews already filmed with the director, writer, and several cast members including Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean, Colleen Camp, and Lee Ving.
I love Clue, it is one of my all time favorite films. In my top ten best films of all time at number #3 and just excellent.
Happy Halloween everybody.
The plot: Based on the popular board game, this comedy begins at a dinner party hosted by Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), where he admits to blackmailing his visitors. These guests, who have been given aliases, are Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) and Col. Mustard (Martin Mull). When Boddy turns up murdered, all are suspects, and together they try to figure out who is the killer.
The film was produced by Debra Hill and the story was by John Landis.
In keeping with the nature of the board game, the theatrical release included three possible endings, with different theaters receiving one of the three endings. In the film's home video release, all three endings were included.
The multiple-ending concept was developed by John Landis, who claimed in an interview to have invited playwright Tom Stoppard, writer and composer Stephen Sondheim, and actor Anthony Perkins to write the screenplay. The script was ultimately finished by director Jonathan Lynn.
A fourth ending was filmed, but Lynn removed it because as he later stated, "It really wasn't very good. I looked at it, and I thought, 'No, no, no, we've got to get rid of that.'" In the unused fourth ending, Wadsworth committed all of the murders. He was motivated by his desire for perfection. Having failed to be either the perfect husband or the perfect butler, he decided to be the perfect murderer instead. Wadsworth reports that he poisoned the champagne the guests had drunk earlier so they would soon die, leaving no witnesses. The police and the FBI arrive and Wadsworth is arrested. He breaks free and steals a police car, but his escape is thwarted when three police dogs lunge from the back seat. This ending is documented in Clue: The Storybook, a tie-in book released in conjunction with the film.
Carrie Fisher was originally contracted to portray Miss Scarlet, but withdrew to enter treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Jonathan Lynn's first choice for the role of Wadsworth was Leonard Rossiter, but he died before filming commenced. The second choice was Rowan Atkinson, but it was decided that he wasn't well known enough at the time, so Tim Curry was eventually cast.
Mrs. White's famous "Flames" speech was improvised by Madeline Kahn.
A documentary about the movie is being made, including interviews already filmed with the director, writer, and several cast members including Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean, Colleen Camp, and Lee Ving.
I love Clue, it is one of my all time favorite films. In my top ten best films of all time at number #3 and just excellent.
Happy Halloween everybody.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Ghost in the Shell is a film adaptation of a 1989 manga and subsequent 1995 anime. Set in the “not so distant future,” Scarlet Johansson plays as Major, the first functioning human brain/consciousness saved from an accident and placed into a full cybernetic body. Effectively, she is the perfect soldier and member of the Section 9 special task-force devoted to counter-terrorism operations.
As an adaptation, fans of the franchise will be pleased to know that Ghost in the shell nails the aesthetic and tone of the source material to provide a stunning, “lived in” future world. The special effects are excellent and really shine to bring this film to life and help us understand the world these characters inhabit.
The characters themselves, while “cool,” lack any real depth. It is not that Scarlet Johansson does an excellent job at being pensive and fits the role fine. It is just that there is no real human quality to her for us to attach to. Instead, everything she does feel “robotic.” Similar to her performance in Lucy with a little bit of Black Widow from the marvel universe crossed in.
Yes, I know she is supposed to be a cyborg. But the film wants us to believe she has actual interest in finding out who she was before the “accident,” but she shows very little human emotion to get us there. Furthermore, if she was the first human mind saved and put into a cyborg body, why doesn’t she show more human emotion when she starts to uncover her past. Meanwhile, her partner, Batou (Pilou Asbaek) showcases just slightly more emotion because he likes to feed stray dogs, however in his case, we at least understand that he is a loyal solder and friend to Major, and thus understand why he is along for the ride.
Additionally (or perhaps as a result) the story suffers from some pacing issues as the film doesn’t always provide clear or strong markers to help the viewer understand what exactly is motivating the characters throughout the film. Rather the film often holds a bit too long on sequences in an attempt to showcase the beautiful world and let the view ponder their own meaning of what they are watching.
This becomes problematic as the characters never really become likeable or establish any depth beyond the paint by numbers plot. Human becomes Cyborg, Cyborg works for a corporation/government, Cyborg figures out they have been lied to, revenge ensues.
In the end, I found myself checking my watch more than I had hoped as the film felt long and tired. If it wasn’t for the stunning world created on screen I would have been completely bored. It’s a shame because I really wanted to like this film. I cannot help but think that if this film had come out in 1999, it would have been amazing!
But in 2017 it feels average at best. Still, Ghost in the Shell is an adequate adaptation that fans of the franchise will enjoy. However I feel this adaptation does not help elevate the franchise beyond what the 1995 Anime has already accomplished.
As an adaptation, fans of the franchise will be pleased to know that Ghost in the shell nails the aesthetic and tone of the source material to provide a stunning, “lived in” future world. The special effects are excellent and really shine to bring this film to life and help us understand the world these characters inhabit.
The characters themselves, while “cool,” lack any real depth. It is not that Scarlet Johansson does an excellent job at being pensive and fits the role fine. It is just that there is no real human quality to her for us to attach to. Instead, everything she does feel “robotic.” Similar to her performance in Lucy with a little bit of Black Widow from the marvel universe crossed in.
Yes, I know she is supposed to be a cyborg. But the film wants us to believe she has actual interest in finding out who she was before the “accident,” but she shows very little human emotion to get us there. Furthermore, if she was the first human mind saved and put into a cyborg body, why doesn’t she show more human emotion when she starts to uncover her past. Meanwhile, her partner, Batou (Pilou Asbaek) showcases just slightly more emotion because he likes to feed stray dogs, however in his case, we at least understand that he is a loyal solder and friend to Major, and thus understand why he is along for the ride.
Additionally (or perhaps as a result) the story suffers from some pacing issues as the film doesn’t always provide clear or strong markers to help the viewer understand what exactly is motivating the characters throughout the film. Rather the film often holds a bit too long on sequences in an attempt to showcase the beautiful world and let the view ponder their own meaning of what they are watching.
This becomes problematic as the characters never really become likeable or establish any depth beyond the paint by numbers plot. Human becomes Cyborg, Cyborg works for a corporation/government, Cyborg figures out they have been lied to, revenge ensues.
In the end, I found myself checking my watch more than I had hoped as the film felt long and tired. If it wasn’t for the stunning world created on screen I would have been completely bored. It’s a shame because I really wanted to like this film. I cannot help but think that if this film had come out in 1999, it would have been amazing!
But in 2017 it feels average at best. Still, Ghost in the Shell is an adequate adaptation that fans of the franchise will enjoy. However I feel this adaptation does not help elevate the franchise beyond what the 1995 Anime has already accomplished.
Ultimate Cat Simulator
Games and Entertainment
App
Pounce into a brand new adventure as a graceful Cat! Hunt down food and find your place in a massive...
The Great Prank War
Games and Entertainment
App
Help Mordecai, Rigby, Muscle Man and Skips take the park back from Gene and his goons with a...
PREDATORS™
Games and Entertainment
App
NEW UPDATE, 67% off for a limited time! Slice and dice human prey with razor sharp Retina display...