Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tiny People, Big Mess.
From the trailer this film looked quirky, funny and interesting and has been on my “looking forward to” list for many months. Oh dear, what a let down.
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Mark Halpern (153 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Feb 3, 2018
Drink Me but you can't eat me
The story of Paul Safranek (Damon) whose life as a physical therapist wants more out of his life with his wife but, can't seem to grasp the brass ring. An medical procedure called Downsizing which not only can make Humans but, anything we use to live a fraction of it's size is the in thing to do. It is supposed to be the escape from your current life to a better life that is easier to bear and suppose to be good for the planet as well. Paul convinces his wife that this is they way for them to get a new start but, at the last minute fear gets the better of her. Now he his forced to live in this new version of the easy life with out her and he comes to realize that things aren't all that different from what he left and niether is the world around him. However one thing changes his prespective on life as he is learning to live it that makes him see the betterment of being one way over the other.
Not usually a Matt Damon fan but, in this movie he was really good. Not that this would win any oscars but, it should have been nominated for best original screenplay as this is a great original story.
Not usually a Matt Damon fan but, in this movie he was really good. Not that this would win any oscars but, it should have been nominated for best original screenplay as this is a great original story.
Saerie_Faerie (18 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Jan 27, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I saw the trailer for this movie I was very intrigued by the premise and I still am if I am honest. I also really like Matt Damon as an actor and was expecting to see him in a more serious role, though The Martian was fairly serious. It started out fine and made sense but as soon as his wife leaves him small and stays big nothing is ever resolved after that. The movie even ends on an odd note that, to me felt like they ran out of time and literally could not cut any more and it was mildly necessary for the story so left it. I do believe the reactions to "downsizing" is realistic though in my opinion which was really nice.
Spoilers from here forward.
Ngoc Lan's prosthetic is never mentioned again after her and Paul have sex. Really? Walking around on a peg leg and having really bad chafing but doesn't mention it? Unrealistic.
Paul takes a random pill from a girl at a party and has crazy visions of his wife and friends but never has to do anything about his underlying feelings.
Paul's neighbor has some weird career supplying the small people with "luxury" items, but no one ever actually talks about them or uses them? Like huge bottles of vodka just exist and don't get used and get left out from the safe underground bunker? Just a convenient plot device for them to go to Norway.
Ngoc Lan illegally enters America and the only thing that happens to her is she goes to the hospital to get treated? Absolutely completely unrealistic.
Also I don't think any women have a conversation besides once without Paul or without it being about a dude. Not sure how I feel about that; or about Ngoc Lan being a house cleaner because of course she is a house cleaner, probably with a side of being a nail artist.
This movie was totally disappointing to me and it could have been awesome. They tried too hard to have it make sense, address all the possible problems with it, have it be funny, and have it be serious at the same time that it just turned muddy. Will probably write a fic to fix it for myself at a later.
Spoilers from here forward.
Ngoc Lan's prosthetic is never mentioned again after her and Paul have sex. Really? Walking around on a peg leg and having really bad chafing but doesn't mention it? Unrealistic.
Paul takes a random pill from a girl at a party and has crazy visions of his wife and friends but never has to do anything about his underlying feelings.
Paul's neighbor has some weird career supplying the small people with "luxury" items, but no one ever actually talks about them or uses them? Like huge bottles of vodka just exist and don't get used and get left out from the safe underground bunker? Just a convenient plot device for them to go to Norway.
Ngoc Lan illegally enters America and the only thing that happens to her is she goes to the hospital to get treated? Absolutely completely unrealistic.
Also I don't think any women have a conversation besides once without Paul or without it being about a dude. Not sure how I feel about that; or about Ngoc Lan being a house cleaner because of course she is a house cleaner, probably with a side of being a nail artist.
This movie was totally disappointing to me and it could have been awesome. They tried too hard to have it make sense, address all the possible problems with it, have it be funny, and have it be serious at the same time that it just turned muddy. Will probably write a fic to fix it for myself at a later.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Slayer (Slayer #1) in Books
Apr 1, 2019
I am a Buffy fan. I'm not the biggest Buffy fan I know - that honor goes to a friend of mine, who I just gave a giant box of Buffy comic to, since we're downsizing in preparation for the move to the new house. I haven't seen anyone that happy in a while, and it made my day. (And hers, judging from the bouncing and squeeeeing and hugging!) But I am still a Buffy fan. I own DVDs of the entire show, plus Angel, plus the original movie. The box of comics I just gave away was Season 8 and some spin offs. Slayer takes place after all of that.
First I'm going to say, if you're not a Buffy fan, seriously don't bother with this book. You won't understand a lot of what goes on, and while there are cursory explanations given in the book, it's really not meant for people that haven't watched/read the rest of the world. You'd be okay not knowing much about Angel, but you really do need to have watched the TV show of Buffy, especially that last season. While the book takes place after the comics, they're not necessary to understand the plot as that, at least, is explained.
So, for the rest of us Buffy fans, this is a great continuation of the Buffy-verse. Nina is the daughter of Watchers - in fact the daughter of Buffy's first watcher, the one before Giles. Given what befell the Watchers, the ones that are left are kind of antagonistic towards Slayers in general and Buffy in particular. So when Nina becomes a Slayer, her world goes sideways.
The world is mostly the same, but with a twist due to events in the comics. (It's explained. You don't need to have read them.) The book expands on how Slayer powers work, a bit, especially their dreams now that there's more than one of them alive at a time. We do see mentions of familiar characters, with one notable scene where an old favorite appears briefly.
I really enjoyed the book, and I'm eager to read the second half of the duology when it comes out. I need to know how Nina's story ends! The book ended on a subtle cliffhanger; the main conflict has been resolved, and the characters think it's over, but we know it's not. Similar to how many episodes of Buffy ended, actually.
So yeah. If you're a Buffy fan, pick up this book, it's pretty great. If you're not - take a pass. Or start with the TV show and get yourself a new fandom if you're feeling bored!
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
First I'm going to say, if you're not a Buffy fan, seriously don't bother with this book. You won't understand a lot of what goes on, and while there are cursory explanations given in the book, it's really not meant for people that haven't watched/read the rest of the world. You'd be okay not knowing much about Angel, but you really do need to have watched the TV show of Buffy, especially that last season. While the book takes place after the comics, they're not necessary to understand the plot as that, at least, is explained.
So, for the rest of us Buffy fans, this is a great continuation of the Buffy-verse. Nina is the daughter of Watchers - in fact the daughter of Buffy's first watcher, the one before Giles. Given what befell the Watchers, the ones that are left are kind of antagonistic towards Slayers in general and Buffy in particular. So when Nina becomes a Slayer, her world goes sideways.
The world is mostly the same, but with a twist due to events in the comics. (It's explained. You don't need to have read them.) The book expands on how Slayer powers work, a bit, especially their dreams now that there's more than one of them alive at a time. We do see mentions of familiar characters, with one notable scene where an old favorite appears briefly.
I really enjoyed the book, and I'm eager to read the second half of the duology when it comes out. I need to know how Nina's story ends! The book ended on a subtle cliffhanger; the main conflict has been resolved, and the characters think it's over, but we know it's not. Similar to how many episodes of Buffy ended, actually.
So yeah. If you're a Buffy fan, pick up this book, it's pretty great. If you're not - take a pass. Or start with the TV show and get yourself a new fandom if you're feeling bored!
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Holdovers (2023) in Movies
Dec 31, 2023
Emotional Rich...and Real
The last time Paul Giamatti starred in an Alexander Payne film (2004’s SIDEWAYS), Payne won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.
Reunited for THE HOLDOVERS, it might be time for Giamatti to win the Oscar.
THE HOLDOVERS tells a well-worn story of a cranky older guy, all-Male Prep School teacher Paul Hunham (Giamatti) who is forced to spend the Christmas holidays sometime in the early 1970’s with arrogant, intelligent, student, Angus Tully (Dominic Sessa). Will they learn to tolerate - and then respect - each other by the time school is back in session? Of course they are.
But it is the journey and not the destination that this film is about - and, boy, what a journey.
Director Payne (working off a screenplay by David Hemingson - WHISKEY CAVALIER) infuses his usual human style into the HOLDOVERS focusing on the characters and driving strong, emotional performances. Sometimes this works (SIDEWAYS, NEBRASKA), sometimes it doesn’t (DOWNSIZING) but in a Payne film it all depends on the strength of the script - and performances - in the film.
Payne was wise to turn over the central character of Paul “Walleye” Hunham to Giamatti who rides the line of curmudgeonly without becoming evil. From the start you can see some sort of humanity under the cranky surface of Paul and when the facade starts to fade away you see a real human being under there. It is, perhaps, the finest performance of Giamatti’s career and expect to see Giamatti’s name called come Oscar Nomination time.
Of course, Giamatti’s performance is only as good as the other actors that he is working against and in newcomer Sessa, Payne has given Giamatti a very good counterpoint indeed - especially since this is Sessa’s Major Motion Picture screen debut. He imbues Tulley with the requisite youthful arrogance but you can sense the vulnerability underneath from a young man who just wants to be accepted - and loved - for who he is.
A joyful surprise of this film is the work of Da’Vine Joy Randolph (ONLY MURDERS IN THE BUILDING) as the cafeteria worker (with a secret tragedy of her own) who volunteers to stay behind to cook for these two. She provides a welcome 3rd leg to this stool and counterbalances both Giamatti’s and Sessa’s performance in a strong - and real - way.
All of this, of course, is due to the fine direction of Payne and the smart, funny and emotionally rich script by Hemingson. They wisely set this piece in the early 1970’s - so there are no cell phones or Internet to draw these people away from each other. They are trapped with one another and must deal with each other in an emotionally satisfying manner.
One of the best films of 2023 (expect to see it in my Top 5 of the year), THE HOLDOVERS is the type of film that the Academy loves - so expect more than 1 Oscar nomination and, just maybe, an Oscar win for Giamatti.
All would be well deserved.
Letter Grade: A
9 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Reunited for THE HOLDOVERS, it might be time for Giamatti to win the Oscar.
THE HOLDOVERS tells a well-worn story of a cranky older guy, all-Male Prep School teacher Paul Hunham (Giamatti) who is forced to spend the Christmas holidays sometime in the early 1970’s with arrogant, intelligent, student, Angus Tully (Dominic Sessa). Will they learn to tolerate - and then respect - each other by the time school is back in session? Of course they are.
But it is the journey and not the destination that this film is about - and, boy, what a journey.
Director Payne (working off a screenplay by David Hemingson - WHISKEY CAVALIER) infuses his usual human style into the HOLDOVERS focusing on the characters and driving strong, emotional performances. Sometimes this works (SIDEWAYS, NEBRASKA), sometimes it doesn’t (DOWNSIZING) but in a Payne film it all depends on the strength of the script - and performances - in the film.
Payne was wise to turn over the central character of Paul “Walleye” Hunham to Giamatti who rides the line of curmudgeonly without becoming evil. From the start you can see some sort of humanity under the cranky surface of Paul and when the facade starts to fade away you see a real human being under there. It is, perhaps, the finest performance of Giamatti’s career and expect to see Giamatti’s name called come Oscar Nomination time.
Of course, Giamatti’s performance is only as good as the other actors that he is working against and in newcomer Sessa, Payne has given Giamatti a very good counterpoint indeed - especially since this is Sessa’s Major Motion Picture screen debut. He imbues Tulley with the requisite youthful arrogance but you can sense the vulnerability underneath from a young man who just wants to be accepted - and loved - for who he is.
A joyful surprise of this film is the work of Da’Vine Joy Randolph (ONLY MURDERS IN THE BUILDING) as the cafeteria worker (with a secret tragedy of her own) who volunteers to stay behind to cook for these two. She provides a welcome 3rd leg to this stool and counterbalances both Giamatti’s and Sessa’s performance in a strong - and real - way.
All of this, of course, is due to the fine direction of Payne and the smart, funny and emotionally rich script by Hemingson. They wisely set this piece in the early 1970’s - so there are no cell phones or Internet to draw these people away from each other. They are trapped with one another and must deal with each other in an emotionally satisfying manner.
One of the best films of 2023 (expect to see it in my Top 5 of the year), THE HOLDOVERS is the type of film that the Academy loves - so expect more than 1 Oscar nomination and, just maybe, an Oscar win for Giamatti.
All would be well deserved.
Letter Grade: A
9 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Menu (2022) in Movies
Nov 24, 2022
Puts the DARK in Dark Comedy
If a Film Comedy is Milk Chocolate and a Dark Comedy is Dark Chocolate, then the new film THE MENU (Directed by Mark Mylod - Game of Thrones) is the SPECIAL INTENSE (90%) Dark Chocolate of films.
And I mean that as a compliment.
Written by Seth Reiss and Will Tracy, THE MENU tells the tale of an exclusive, isolated restaurant, the 12 clients that head out to the secluded island this restaurant is on and the ego-maniacal, celebrity chef that runs this restaurant - and this dining experience. What starts out as a satire of these types of restaurants, the chefs and the hero-worship of it’s clientele turns into something much, much more sinister.
This is a film in 2 parts - the first part is a satire of the “Foodie” World with the dishes being somewhat absurd - and believable - as the attendees gush over the dishes, trying to interpret what they are being served and why. The 2nd half turns darker - as the real theme of the night emerges - but it is not the horror/slasher film that one is led to believe in the trailer, it is more of a psychological suspense thriller with some gore to accentuate the themes. (But make no mistake, there IS gore).
Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort in the Harry Potter films) is the perfect choice as the central figure in this film, Chef Slowik. He controls the screen by standing still and when he speaks and goes into action he pulls the audience - and his clientele - into his web.
Anya Tayor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is growing into an actress that is extremely interesting to watch on film and she more than holds her own up against Fiennes in their scenes together. She becomes just as much a force as he is.
The supporting characters in this adventure are interesting ranging from the always good John Leguzamo to Judith Light to Nicholas Hoult and Janet McTeer. They all flesh out characters that could have been just 2 dimensional background characters, but in the capable hands of these performers, they become much more.
Special notice needs to be made of Hong Chau (DOWNSIZING) as Chef Slowik’s main assistant. She pretty much holds down the center of the first part of this film (as we build up the entrance of Fiennes’ character) and she pulls it off with an understated strong performance.
Director Mylod treads an interesting line in THE MENU as he starts this film as a satire, moves it to a dark comedy fairly quickly and then moves it to a much darker place while still keeping the satiric and dark comedic tones as the more sinister things are happening. It’s a tightrope walk to be sure, and Mylod pulls it off.
It’s the type of film that will be difficult to find an audience for it is 2 types of films put together as one - and neither will totally satisfy hard-core fans - but for someone who is looking for an intelligent suspense film (with some gore and, again, let me emphasize that there IS gore) than this MENU will satisfy.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And I mean that as a compliment.
Written by Seth Reiss and Will Tracy, THE MENU tells the tale of an exclusive, isolated restaurant, the 12 clients that head out to the secluded island this restaurant is on and the ego-maniacal, celebrity chef that runs this restaurant - and this dining experience. What starts out as a satire of these types of restaurants, the chefs and the hero-worship of it’s clientele turns into something much, much more sinister.
This is a film in 2 parts - the first part is a satire of the “Foodie” World with the dishes being somewhat absurd - and believable - as the attendees gush over the dishes, trying to interpret what they are being served and why. The 2nd half turns darker - as the real theme of the night emerges - but it is not the horror/slasher film that one is led to believe in the trailer, it is more of a psychological suspense thriller with some gore to accentuate the themes. (But make no mistake, there IS gore).
Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort in the Harry Potter films) is the perfect choice as the central figure in this film, Chef Slowik. He controls the screen by standing still and when he speaks and goes into action he pulls the audience - and his clientele - into his web.
Anya Tayor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is growing into an actress that is extremely interesting to watch on film and she more than holds her own up against Fiennes in their scenes together. She becomes just as much a force as he is.
The supporting characters in this adventure are interesting ranging from the always good John Leguzamo to Judith Light to Nicholas Hoult and Janet McTeer. They all flesh out characters that could have been just 2 dimensional background characters, but in the capable hands of these performers, they become much more.
Special notice needs to be made of Hong Chau (DOWNSIZING) as Chef Slowik’s main assistant. She pretty much holds down the center of the first part of this film (as we build up the entrance of Fiennes’ character) and she pulls it off with an understated strong performance.
Director Mylod treads an interesting line in THE MENU as he starts this film as a satire, moves it to a dark comedy fairly quickly and then moves it to a much darker place while still keeping the satiric and dark comedic tones as the more sinister things are happening. It’s a tightrope walk to be sure, and Mylod pulls it off.
It’s the type of film that will be difficult to find an audience for it is 2 types of films put together as one - and neither will totally satisfy hard-core fans - but for someone who is looking for an intelligent suspense film (with some gore and, again, let me emphasize that there IS gore) than this MENU will satisfy.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019
Why oh why did they rename this film? I always want to call it Ford v Ferrari and several times I've said "Le Mans '66" and got odd looks so had to follow it up with the original.
Sports films are a weakness of mine, I love them but I'm not really sure why as I'm very much a spectator than a participant. Some racing meant this film got an automatic spot in the LFF planning... even with Matt Damon in it.
We've got another "based on true events" film on our hands and taking a glance at what car and racing experts have to say it seems that the events are fairly well done apart from some Hollywood tweaks here and there.
My main love in car movies is the roar of the engine, you can't beat that sound. I was nearly disappointed as almost instantly we get the engine sound but without the oomph, it was a really upsetting feeling. They did redeem themselves shortly after but I didn't enjoy that first moment at all. I did suffer with the audio in general being rather loud but I'm going to lay that firmly at the feet of old age rather than anything else.
There are a lot of people in this film, you only have to go for a scroll in the listings to see that. They add that busy feeling, the urgency of the project, the eagerness for the win. Some scenes feel crowded but they knew when to hold back and that meant that during the chaos we were still able to see some smaller and more powerful moments, moments that really were needed to break everything up.
Christian Bale did a Christian Bale for this film, after putting on all the weight for Vice he dropped it all again for his role as Ken Miles. Someone please cast him as a regular man, I worry about him. Ken's dedication to the sport and the skill really shines in Bale's performance, would we expect anything less from him? No, of course not. One of the most pleasing things is Bale saying "T'ra" in that accent, so soothing to listen to.
Matt Damon isn't a great love of mine, I'll watch his films with a disgruntled look on my face... Downsizing, that's for you... but... yes, there's a but, I thought he played Carroll Shelby exceptionally well, and without a hint of "Matt Damon" in it. This felt like the first time I've seen him in something where he's committed more to the role.
Great performances don't always mean great chemistry on screen but the two played off each other to great effect throughout. There's one fantastic scene (that you can see in one of the trailers) where they tussle together and it's such fun to watch, the full scene holds so much more than the trailer clips do.
Everything comes together in Le Mans '66 (*cough* Ford v Ferrari *cough*). The era is captured perfectly from all angles, the attention to detail on set looks spot on. The script isn't overly complicated and allowed the viewer (or at the very least me) to follow the story. The scenes on track are beautiful to watch with the truly impressive effect for weather and conditions being consistent in each shot. If you're asking me to find a quibble it would be on the crash effects, during one in particular the CGI seemed a little weak but you're drawn into the next shot fairly quickly so it's just a fleeting view.
Le Mans '66 was genuinely one of the highlights of the London Film Festival for me, Bale gives a stellar performance filled with humour and heart, Damon wowed me with his portrayal of Shelby and the way they managed to bring his character full circle... I didn't expect this to be such an emotional movie, I was taken aback by some of the moments and I genuinely can't wait to see this again.
Full review originally published on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/le-mans-66-movie-review.html
Sports films are a weakness of mine, I love them but I'm not really sure why as I'm very much a spectator than a participant. Some racing meant this film got an automatic spot in the LFF planning... even with Matt Damon in it.
We've got another "based on true events" film on our hands and taking a glance at what car and racing experts have to say it seems that the events are fairly well done apart from some Hollywood tweaks here and there.
My main love in car movies is the roar of the engine, you can't beat that sound. I was nearly disappointed as almost instantly we get the engine sound but without the oomph, it was a really upsetting feeling. They did redeem themselves shortly after but I didn't enjoy that first moment at all. I did suffer with the audio in general being rather loud but I'm going to lay that firmly at the feet of old age rather than anything else.
There are a lot of people in this film, you only have to go for a scroll in the listings to see that. They add that busy feeling, the urgency of the project, the eagerness for the win. Some scenes feel crowded but they knew when to hold back and that meant that during the chaos we were still able to see some smaller and more powerful moments, moments that really were needed to break everything up.
Christian Bale did a Christian Bale for this film, after putting on all the weight for Vice he dropped it all again for his role as Ken Miles. Someone please cast him as a regular man, I worry about him. Ken's dedication to the sport and the skill really shines in Bale's performance, would we expect anything less from him? No, of course not. One of the most pleasing things is Bale saying "T'ra" in that accent, so soothing to listen to.
Matt Damon isn't a great love of mine, I'll watch his films with a disgruntled look on my face... Downsizing, that's for you... but... yes, there's a but, I thought he played Carroll Shelby exceptionally well, and without a hint of "Matt Damon" in it. This felt like the first time I've seen him in something where he's committed more to the role.
Great performances don't always mean great chemistry on screen but the two played off each other to great effect throughout. There's one fantastic scene (that you can see in one of the trailers) where they tussle together and it's such fun to watch, the full scene holds so much more than the trailer clips do.
Everything comes together in Le Mans '66 (*cough* Ford v Ferrari *cough*). The era is captured perfectly from all angles, the attention to detail on set looks spot on. The script isn't overly complicated and allowed the viewer (or at the very least me) to follow the story. The scenes on track are beautiful to watch with the truly impressive effect for weather and conditions being consistent in each shot. If you're asking me to find a quibble it would be on the crash effects, during one in particular the CGI seemed a little weak but you're drawn into the next shot fairly quickly so it's just a fleeting view.
Le Mans '66 was genuinely one of the highlights of the London Film Festival for me, Bale gives a stellar performance filled with humour and heart, Damon wowed me with his portrayal of Shelby and the way they managed to bring his character full circle... I didn't expect this to be such an emotional movie, I was taken aback by some of the moments and I genuinely can't wait to see this again.
Full review originally published on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/le-mans-66-movie-review.html