Search
Search results
Kevin Phillipson (10018 KP) rated Babyteeth (2019) in Movies
Sep 3, 2020
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Babyteeth (2019) in Movies
Aug 25, 2020
I've had more fun at the orthodontist's
Now, before I start, I know I'm likely to be at odds with a lot of viewers on this one. Having had a glance at the IMDB ratings, I can see a lot of arthouse love for this Australian movie. But this really was not for me.
Eliza Scanlen plays Australian schoolgirl Milla, displaying typically rebellious symptoms of adolescence but hampered by a crippling medical issue. She meets a 23-year old drug addict, Moses (Toby Wallace), and the pair feel an immediate pull towards each other, much to the horror of her parents Henry (Ben Mendelsohn) and Anna (Essie Davis). The kids are dysfunctional (for different reasons); the parents are not much better. Adding to the drama is a strange violin teacher (Eugene Gilfedder) and a pregnant (MILF-to-be) next door neighbour (Emily Barclay). We follow the life and love of Milla as she struggles with her circumstances... and the last of her Babyteeth.
I can draw parallels here to the movie "Animals" from last year. Indeed to the Oscar-winner "Moonlight" from four year's ago. I could readily perceive it to be intelligent and artfully produced. But I'm afraid I felt zero empathy or pull from any of the characters. Given that, and the slow burn of writer Rita Kalnejais's screenplay, I found myself constantly looking at my watch for the last half-hour of the movie.
The movie's not without its merits though. Babyteeth has picked up a number of nominations, and as many wins, on the international film-festival circuit, mostly for the direction of Shannon Murphy. This is a first-time feature for TV-director Murphy (she directed two episodes from this year's series of "Killing Eve" for example). Awards have also gone to Toby Wallace for his portrayal of the slightly unhinged and unpredictable Moses. But for me, it was Eliza Scanlen's performance as Milla that appealed to me most and kept my attention. Other-worldly and slightly ethereal, she pulls off the role well. Scanlen was of course Beth March in the recent superb version of "Little Woman". (She's a young lady with great potential, but she needs to be careful not to get typecast as sickly waifs!)
Babyteeth was for me a curate's egg in the photography department. Cinematography was by Andrew Commis, and I found it both breathtaking and frustrating in almost equal measure. There's a scene towards the end of the movie with Milla's face half-lit in the moonlight that was reminiscent to me of the star-child in "2001: A Space Odyssey". Simply gorgeous. And scenes in a nightclub are both strangely and effectively shot. But - and art-house movies seem to mandate this approach - the movie is shot on handheld cameras. This makes a lot of the shots drift in and out of focus. Moreover - and most frustratingly for me - it makes the multitude of scene titles, employed in the telling, float ever-so-slightly against the backgrounds, with a generally nauseating effect.
I'll no doubt feel a right Charlie if Babyteeth gets into the Oscars nominations short-list. But for me, it just wasn't engaging enough to be entertaining. It's billed as a "Comedy Drama". While there were a few good comic lines, it rarely made me do more than smile. And as for the drama, I'm afraid tears were far from being spilled. It's in no way a "bad film": it just personally wasn't for me.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movie on https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/25/babyteeth-you-might-have-more-fun-at-the-orthodontists/.)
Eliza Scanlen plays Australian schoolgirl Milla, displaying typically rebellious symptoms of adolescence but hampered by a crippling medical issue. She meets a 23-year old drug addict, Moses (Toby Wallace), and the pair feel an immediate pull towards each other, much to the horror of her parents Henry (Ben Mendelsohn) and Anna (Essie Davis). The kids are dysfunctional (for different reasons); the parents are not much better. Adding to the drama is a strange violin teacher (Eugene Gilfedder) and a pregnant (MILF-to-be) next door neighbour (Emily Barclay). We follow the life and love of Milla as she struggles with her circumstances... and the last of her Babyteeth.
I can draw parallels here to the movie "Animals" from last year. Indeed to the Oscar-winner "Moonlight" from four year's ago. I could readily perceive it to be intelligent and artfully produced. But I'm afraid I felt zero empathy or pull from any of the characters. Given that, and the slow burn of writer Rita Kalnejais's screenplay, I found myself constantly looking at my watch for the last half-hour of the movie.
The movie's not without its merits though. Babyteeth has picked up a number of nominations, and as many wins, on the international film-festival circuit, mostly for the direction of Shannon Murphy. This is a first-time feature for TV-director Murphy (she directed two episodes from this year's series of "Killing Eve" for example). Awards have also gone to Toby Wallace for his portrayal of the slightly unhinged and unpredictable Moses. But for me, it was Eliza Scanlen's performance as Milla that appealed to me most and kept my attention. Other-worldly and slightly ethereal, she pulls off the role well. Scanlen was of course Beth March in the recent superb version of "Little Woman". (She's a young lady with great potential, but she needs to be careful not to get typecast as sickly waifs!)
Babyteeth was for me a curate's egg in the photography department. Cinematography was by Andrew Commis, and I found it both breathtaking and frustrating in almost equal measure. There's a scene towards the end of the movie with Milla's face half-lit in the moonlight that was reminiscent to me of the star-child in "2001: A Space Odyssey". Simply gorgeous. And scenes in a nightclub are both strangely and effectively shot. But - and art-house movies seem to mandate this approach - the movie is shot on handheld cameras. This makes a lot of the shots drift in and out of focus. Moreover - and most frustratingly for me - it makes the multitude of scene titles, employed in the telling, float ever-so-slightly against the backgrounds, with a generally nauseating effect.
I'll no doubt feel a right Charlie if Babyteeth gets into the Oscars nominations short-list. But for me, it just wasn't engaging enough to be entertaining. It's billed as a "Comedy Drama". While there were a few good comic lines, it rarely made me do more than smile. And as for the drama, I'm afraid tears were far from being spilled. It's in no way a "bad film": it just personally wasn't for me.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movie on https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/25/babyteeth-you-might-have-more-fun-at-the-orthodontists/.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
A Worthy Adaptation
There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 19th Century Classic novel LITTLE WOMEN following the adventures, loves and losses of the 4 March sisters - Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth.. My favorite is the Orono High School's production of the musical version of LITTLE WOMEN (starring my daughter as Jo), but coming in a close second is the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn starring as Jo (the quintessential Jo, in my book). So was there really a need for ANOTHER version of this?
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Aug 22, 2021
Having been out of the "coming soon" game for quite a while so this one came as a surprise when I saw the trailer. It looked good, but there's always that "what is Shyamalan going to do" feeling.
An idyllic resort, a glorious beach. What starts out to be a pleasant day trip turns into tragedy and horror as the guests start ageing at an accelerated rate. What's going on and why can't they seem to do anything about it?
I'm going to mix this up a bit from my usual reviews because it seems appropriate for this oddity of a film.
As a whole, the film probably has a place in the Lost extended universe (especially considering Miles' role in it). Mystery and generalised horror abound, and you're left for prolonged periods of time with more questions than answers. Let's cover the biggie though.
That whole ageing thing... it is in the trailer so I'm going to do my best not to be spoilery.
Let's face it... there's a massive inconsistency. I'm happy to go with the fact that kids will change more physically with age than the adults will initially... no problem with that bit. But the assembled people on the beach have been there for (more or less) two different periods of time. While I don't remember it being established when the first arrived, I would have expected a more pronounced visual than the one we were presented with.
When the group get to the beach, Maddox is 11 and her brother Trent is 6. then there's Kara who is also 6. They progressively age throughout the events and we end up with three teenage looking kids. I'm still on board here, perfectly "logical". But here is also where I start to tail off into what could be a massive psychological debate... their bodies age, but their minds are only exposed to what is around them in that time, so are their actions in line with that?
Thomasin McKenzie seemed to have the right balance, with her character at a starting age of 11 she has the best chance of getting away with it, and her effort was good. I'm not sure the same is true of Alex Wolff and Eliza Scanlen though. Their storyline together, and their behaviour, didn't feel consistent. Particularly with Trent. Mentally the pair should still have been 6, or at least more immature than their look, but that didn't come across very effectively.
We're introduced to all of the characters in fairly quick succession at the beginning, but you do get a very clear idea about what you can expect from them going forward. They don't all really work together, and if chaos wasn't a necessary part of the film then I think I would have tired quickly of them all. As it was, I didn't particularly like any of the characters, including the parents of Trent and Maddox, but at least their journey evolved well through the film.
I feel like I need to mention the dubious sexualisation of the kids, in particular when we have Thomasin McKenzie as Maddox. When they discover the kids have aged up, Mum tells her to change into a swimsuit she has in her bag. The swimsuit she was already wearing covered everything relatively well, and actually has more cloth on it than the alternative. When I think about the things I bring to a beach in my bag with me, I bring a t-shirt, shorts, a sarong... never a second bikini. Would it not have been more logical to give her something different to wear? And was it really necessary to be there at all? I also have another point under this, but it would constitute spoilers I'm afraid.
Old's beach location is stunning, and some of the features allow for a slightly sinister edge. But a lot of the atmosphere is brought in with the cameras, and at one point I felt a rage come over me because of a collection of panning shots of the group. Yes, I know there are better things to be annoyed about, but it bugged me, I couldn't help it!
As a quick round-up of other points:
- I quite enjoyed Shyamalan's role
- Listening to people pronounce my surname wrong gives me palpitations, and
- The one bit of massively noticeable CGI was bad, so very, very, bad.
I'm interested to read the source material and see how its ending compares to what Shyamalan conjured. It's difficult to discuss the end without spoilers, but that's probably just as well because it'll lead to another heavy discussion. The actual resolution though does have a satisfying moment, even though it felt a little wrong.
Now for my overall feelings on the film... I enjoyed the mystery of it, and there are plenty of debates that arise. But the inconsistent moments in the ageing and how the ending comes around, sadly ate into my total score.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/old-movie-review.html
An idyllic resort, a glorious beach. What starts out to be a pleasant day trip turns into tragedy and horror as the guests start ageing at an accelerated rate. What's going on and why can't they seem to do anything about it?
I'm going to mix this up a bit from my usual reviews because it seems appropriate for this oddity of a film.
As a whole, the film probably has a place in the Lost extended universe (especially considering Miles' role in it). Mystery and generalised horror abound, and you're left for prolonged periods of time with more questions than answers. Let's cover the biggie though.
That whole ageing thing... it is in the trailer so I'm going to do my best not to be spoilery.
Let's face it... there's a massive inconsistency. I'm happy to go with the fact that kids will change more physically with age than the adults will initially... no problem with that bit. But the assembled people on the beach have been there for (more or less) two different periods of time. While I don't remember it being established when the first arrived, I would have expected a more pronounced visual than the one we were presented with.
When the group get to the beach, Maddox is 11 and her brother Trent is 6. then there's Kara who is also 6. They progressively age throughout the events and we end up with three teenage looking kids. I'm still on board here, perfectly "logical". But here is also where I start to tail off into what could be a massive psychological debate... their bodies age, but their minds are only exposed to what is around them in that time, so are their actions in line with that?
Thomasin McKenzie seemed to have the right balance, with her character at a starting age of 11 she has the best chance of getting away with it, and her effort was good. I'm not sure the same is true of Alex Wolff and Eliza Scanlen though. Their storyline together, and their behaviour, didn't feel consistent. Particularly with Trent. Mentally the pair should still have been 6, or at least more immature than their look, but that didn't come across very effectively.
We're introduced to all of the characters in fairly quick succession at the beginning, but you do get a very clear idea about what you can expect from them going forward. They don't all really work together, and if chaos wasn't a necessary part of the film then I think I would have tired quickly of them all. As it was, I didn't particularly like any of the characters, including the parents of Trent and Maddox, but at least their journey evolved well through the film.
I feel like I need to mention the dubious sexualisation of the kids, in particular when we have Thomasin McKenzie as Maddox. When they discover the kids have aged up, Mum tells her to change into a swimsuit she has in her bag. The swimsuit she was already wearing covered everything relatively well, and actually has more cloth on it than the alternative. When I think about the things I bring to a beach in my bag with me, I bring a t-shirt, shorts, a sarong... never a second bikini. Would it not have been more logical to give her something different to wear? And was it really necessary to be there at all? I also have another point under this, but it would constitute spoilers I'm afraid.
Old's beach location is stunning, and some of the features allow for a slightly sinister edge. But a lot of the atmosphere is brought in with the cameras, and at one point I felt a rage come over me because of a collection of panning shots of the group. Yes, I know there are better things to be annoyed about, but it bugged me, I couldn't help it!
As a quick round-up of other points:
- I quite enjoyed Shyamalan's role
- Listening to people pronounce my surname wrong gives me palpitations, and
- The one bit of massively noticeable CGI was bad, so very, very, bad.
I'm interested to read the source material and see how its ending compares to what Shyamalan conjured. It's difficult to discuss the end without spoilers, but that's probably just as well because it'll lead to another heavy discussion. The actual resolution though does have a satisfying moment, even though it felt a little wrong.
Now for my overall feelings on the film... I enjoyed the mystery of it, and there are plenty of debates that arise. But the inconsistent moments in the ageing and how the ending comes around, sadly ate into my total score.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/old-movie-review.html