Search
Search results
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated A Frozen Heart in Books
Sep 20, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
It seems like adaptations of Frozen and Frozen 2 are everywhere right now: it must be so hard for an author to come up with a story that is different enough to draw readers in but still in-keeping with the story. Luckily, Elizabeth Rudnick’s skilled writing turns the typical Frozen tale on its head: telling it solely from the perspective of Anna and Hans.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
Feb 22, 2018
A fun "who-will-survive" flick
During the Super Bowl, a "surprise" trailer dropped for a new entry in the Cloverfield family of films. The good news is that the film was dropping on Netflix the next day, so fanboys immediately jumped on-line and then started hating on it (again, on-line) because it wasn't exactly what they thought it would be.
Which is too bad, for THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is a very fun, very well made, very well acted "10 Little Indians" style Sci-Fi film (you know, the type of film where a finite group of folks are marooned someplace - like and island or an isolated, creepy mansion and are picked off one by one). This time, they are on a space station, and when an experiment goes awry, bad things start to happen.
I stated that this film is another entry in the "Cloverfield family of films", so let me explain that. The overseer of these films is none other than JJ Abrams and he has stated that there will be a series of films - very different in style, type and substance - that will (somehow) be related in the Cloverfield Universe. And, so far, he has fulfilled his promise (at least to me) - for those that just want "more of the same", he has alienated.
The first film, CLOVERFIELD, is a "found footage" film about a giant monster (think Godzilla) rampaging through modern day New York City. Of the 3 films,thus far, in the Cloverfield family, this one (for me) was the least effective (especially because I am not a big fan of "found footage" films). The 2nd film was 2016's 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE and was a very effective psychological horror/drama starring John Goodman as a fellow who has rescued/captured (kidnapped?) Mary Elizabeth Winstead and has locked her in his survival bunker in order to - he says - save her from the monster above. The film effectively goes back and forth with wondering what is scarier - the monster above or the monster (Goodman) below. If you haven't seen 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE, I highly recommend it.
The third installment, then, is THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX, a prequel of sorts about a group of scientists aboard a space station conducting a desperate, highly dangerous power experiments to solve the world's energy crisis. When something goes wrong, bad things happen. And since this is in the Cloverfield family, you gotta know it has some connection with how the Cloverfield monster got on Earth.
But this film doesn't really concern itself with the Cloverfield monster - which is what I think is angering the "fanboys" - this film is about the survival of the charismatic, international scientists that are stranded on this space station after the accident. Almost every one of the actors in this film are "oh...that guy" type actors - all very good. From German actor Daniel Bruhl (RUSH) to Chinese actress Ziyi Zhang (CROUCHING TIGER...) to Englishman David Oyelowo (SELMA) to good ol' John Ortiz (a million different things) - the cast is strong, fun to watch and easy to root for. They all are in service to the plot devices (and predicaments they are in) and they serve the plot (and the film) well.
Special notice should be made for Chris O'Dowd (BRIDESMAIDS) who brings some much needed levity via his deadpan humor approach to everything as the ship's handyman and, especially, Gugu Mbatha-Raw (BELLE) as the heroine of the adventure from through who's eyes we encounter the events of the film.
I have stated before that I am a sucker for these types of "10 Little Indians who-will-survive" films and this one is no exception. Go in with no preconceived notions, roll with what the film throws at you and you'll have a good time time, too.
THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is now streaming on Netflix.
Letter Grade: B (it is the very definition of a "B" movie).
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Which is too bad, for THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is a very fun, very well made, very well acted "10 Little Indians" style Sci-Fi film (you know, the type of film where a finite group of folks are marooned someplace - like and island or an isolated, creepy mansion and are picked off one by one). This time, they are on a space station, and when an experiment goes awry, bad things start to happen.
I stated that this film is another entry in the "Cloverfield family of films", so let me explain that. The overseer of these films is none other than JJ Abrams and he has stated that there will be a series of films - very different in style, type and substance - that will (somehow) be related in the Cloverfield Universe. And, so far, he has fulfilled his promise (at least to me) - for those that just want "more of the same", he has alienated.
The first film, CLOVERFIELD, is a "found footage" film about a giant monster (think Godzilla) rampaging through modern day New York City. Of the 3 films,thus far, in the Cloverfield family, this one (for me) was the least effective (especially because I am not a big fan of "found footage" films). The 2nd film was 2016's 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE and was a very effective psychological horror/drama starring John Goodman as a fellow who has rescued/captured (kidnapped?) Mary Elizabeth Winstead and has locked her in his survival bunker in order to - he says - save her from the monster above. The film effectively goes back and forth with wondering what is scarier - the monster above or the monster (Goodman) below. If you haven't seen 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE, I highly recommend it.
The third installment, then, is THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX, a prequel of sorts about a group of scientists aboard a space station conducting a desperate, highly dangerous power experiments to solve the world's energy crisis. When something goes wrong, bad things happen. And since this is in the Cloverfield family, you gotta know it has some connection with how the Cloverfield monster got on Earth.
But this film doesn't really concern itself with the Cloverfield monster - which is what I think is angering the "fanboys" - this film is about the survival of the charismatic, international scientists that are stranded on this space station after the accident. Almost every one of the actors in this film are "oh...that guy" type actors - all very good. From German actor Daniel Bruhl (RUSH) to Chinese actress Ziyi Zhang (CROUCHING TIGER...) to Englishman David Oyelowo (SELMA) to good ol' John Ortiz (a million different things) - the cast is strong, fun to watch and easy to root for. They all are in service to the plot devices (and predicaments they are in) and they serve the plot (and the film) well.
Special notice should be made for Chris O'Dowd (BRIDESMAIDS) who brings some much needed levity via his deadpan humor approach to everything as the ship's handyman and, especially, Gugu Mbatha-Raw (BELLE) as the heroine of the adventure from through who's eyes we encounter the events of the film.
I have stated before that I am a sucker for these types of "10 Little Indians who-will-survive" films and this one is no exception. Go in with no preconceived notions, roll with what the film throws at you and you'll have a good time time, too.
THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is now streaming on Netflix.
Letter Grade: B (it is the very definition of a "B" movie).
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
Jan 10, 2021
This one is pretty straightforward - The Thing (2011) is an ok film that is completely dwarfed by The Thing (1982) - honestly, fuck knows why it doesn't have a different title.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Oct 11, 2019
Not even two Will Smiths can save it.
"Gemini Man (2019)" is a blend of action, drama, crime and sci-fi, and tells the story of Henry Brogan (portrayed by Will Smith), the world's most renowned assassin who is looking to retire from the government agency he's been working for.
When he finds out his last job wasn't all it seemed, he starts asking questions, which quickly prompts the agency to try and retire him themselves. We know from the trailers that a younger clone of himself is sent to kill him, and so begins a typical cat-and-mouse gunfight across the globe.
*sigh*
I was really disappointed with this film. It had so much potential - a strong lead with great support from Clive Owen (in fine antagonistic form), Benedict Wong (playing another Wong-esque character) and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (in a commanding, if at times a little bland, outing). But even a good turn from Mr. Smith can't stop it from ultimately becoming a victim of its own ambition.
The plot isn't especially original, but has a nice twist to it that sets it apart. However, it loses itself halfway through, becoming convoluted and indecipherable, seemingly even for the cast. Nothing feels like it has any meaning, and the promising start was soon forgotten in favour of one set piece after another.
And speaking of the set pieces, whilst the action and choreography is really good, the scenes with Will Smith vs. Will Smith (both fighting and talking) are ruined by poor CGI. It's too obviously computer-generated. To me, good CGI looks integrated into the real life scenes, but this stands out like a video game. The action scenes in particular are way too fast and unrealistic. It's like they're trying to recreate the gritty, hard-hitting pace and tone of the Bourne films, but end up with The Matrix being playing on fast forward.
Ang Lee is the kind of director who either wins big (see "Life Of Pi (2012)") or loses big (see "Hulk (2003)"). I don't know where the blame lies here. The script wasn't particularly bad. The direction was... okay. But nothing seemed to gel. It had all the right ingredients and should've been great, yet it fails in every aspect.
This could've been one of the year's best blockbusters... sadly, it's a forgettable tale that Will Smith will likely want wiping from his IMDB profile.
When he finds out his last job wasn't all it seemed, he starts asking questions, which quickly prompts the agency to try and retire him themselves. We know from the trailers that a younger clone of himself is sent to kill him, and so begins a typical cat-and-mouse gunfight across the globe.
*sigh*
I was really disappointed with this film. It had so much potential - a strong lead with great support from Clive Owen (in fine antagonistic form), Benedict Wong (playing another Wong-esque character) and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (in a commanding, if at times a little bland, outing). But even a good turn from Mr. Smith can't stop it from ultimately becoming a victim of its own ambition.
The plot isn't especially original, but has a nice twist to it that sets it apart. However, it loses itself halfway through, becoming convoluted and indecipherable, seemingly even for the cast. Nothing feels like it has any meaning, and the promising start was soon forgotten in favour of one set piece after another.
And speaking of the set pieces, whilst the action and choreography is really good, the scenes with Will Smith vs. Will Smith (both fighting and talking) are ruined by poor CGI. It's too obviously computer-generated. To me, good CGI looks integrated into the real life scenes, but this stands out like a video game. The action scenes in particular are way too fast and unrealistic. It's like they're trying to recreate the gritty, hard-hitting pace and tone of the Bourne films, but end up with The Matrix being playing on fast forward.
Ang Lee is the kind of director who either wins big (see "Life Of Pi (2012)") or loses big (see "Hulk (2003)"). I don't know where the blame lies here. The script wasn't particularly bad. The direction was... okay. But nothing seemed to gel. It had all the right ingredients and should've been great, yet it fails in every aspect.
This could've been one of the year's best blockbusters... sadly, it's a forgettable tale that Will Smith will likely want wiping from his IMDB profile.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Mar 1, 2019
Doesn't Quite Succeed In What It Was Attempting To Do
Liam Neeson has stated that COLD PURSUIT is going to be his last action film. And, if that is the case, he certainly picked an interesting one to go out on.
Based on the Norwegian film KRAFTIDIOTEN and Directed by the same person (Hans Peter Moland), COLD PURSUIT follows snowplow driver Nels Coxman (Neeson) who's son dies of a drug overdose. It's not long before Coxman uses his "certain set of skills" to settle the score.
And that is how this movie was marketed (taking advantage of Neeson's past 10 years of action hero status) and that is too bad for those who are going into this film expecting a "standard Neeson kick butt revenge action flick) are going to be disappointed, for Cold Pursuit has parts of that, but it also has an element to it that is going to take some getting used to - it's "Norwegian sense of humor".
To say this film is a "Dark Comedy" does not do it justice, for the comedy in this film (and there IS comedy) is so rooted in the violence and action of the proceedings that, at first, the audience does not know how to react to it. By the end, it is clear that this is a comedy - and I wished that it would have worn it's comedic elements just a little more on it's sleeve. But then, I guess, I would be missing the point of what makes up the "Norwegian sense of humor" - oddity and subtlety. And this film IS odd from the setting (a remote ski resort village outside of Denver) to the warring drug gangs (city thugs vs. Native Americans) to the lazy Sherriff and laid back townspeople to Coxman's hippy, drug addled wife (Laura Dern). It is an odd assortment of people and circumstances, but not quite as add as...say...Twin Peaks.
And that's what hurts it. It IS a subtle film with subtle humor and subtle quirks, but (at times) is TOO subtle for an American audience that is used to being hit over the head with themes and quirks and violence.
One who is NOT subtle in this film is Neeson as Coxman. He brings the rugged, dependable man of action that one has come to expect during his action-hero phase. Also not subtle (not by a long-shot) is Tom Bateman as the main bad guy, Viking (they all have nicknames) who telegraphs that he is a bad guy by being over-the-top, doing everything but kicking a puppy and twirling his mustache.
Domenick Lombardozzi as Mustang (one of Vikings' henchmen) and Tom Jackson as White Bull (leader of the Native American clan) find the right line between subtlety and over-acting and ground this film (for the most part). The rest of the cast (including John Doman and Emmy Rossum as the town Sheriffs) flit through this film, uneventfully and uninterestingly, neither adding nor detracting from the events. Only William Forsythe, as Neeson's shady brother and Elizabeth Thais (as his wife Anne) manage to rise above things in the limited amount of screen time they are given. And, finally, Laura Dern is wasted in an underwritten - and under-performed - role of Neeson's wife.
I can hear Director Moland screaming to his cast "Less, less...give me less...no more...More...MORE!!!" and the result is an uneven film that is underplayed too much in some ways and overplayed WAY too much in others. And this is too bad, for he had an interesting concept going, he just didn't execute it (at least not with this group of performers) very well. I'll be interested in seeing the original Norwegian film, KRAFTIDIOTEN, to see if it worked there.
Letter Grade: B- (for I applaud what it was trying to do)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Based on the Norwegian film KRAFTIDIOTEN and Directed by the same person (Hans Peter Moland), COLD PURSUIT follows snowplow driver Nels Coxman (Neeson) who's son dies of a drug overdose. It's not long before Coxman uses his "certain set of skills" to settle the score.
And that is how this movie was marketed (taking advantage of Neeson's past 10 years of action hero status) and that is too bad for those who are going into this film expecting a "standard Neeson kick butt revenge action flick) are going to be disappointed, for Cold Pursuit has parts of that, but it also has an element to it that is going to take some getting used to - it's "Norwegian sense of humor".
To say this film is a "Dark Comedy" does not do it justice, for the comedy in this film (and there IS comedy) is so rooted in the violence and action of the proceedings that, at first, the audience does not know how to react to it. By the end, it is clear that this is a comedy - and I wished that it would have worn it's comedic elements just a little more on it's sleeve. But then, I guess, I would be missing the point of what makes up the "Norwegian sense of humor" - oddity and subtlety. And this film IS odd from the setting (a remote ski resort village outside of Denver) to the warring drug gangs (city thugs vs. Native Americans) to the lazy Sherriff and laid back townspeople to Coxman's hippy, drug addled wife (Laura Dern). It is an odd assortment of people and circumstances, but not quite as add as...say...Twin Peaks.
And that's what hurts it. It IS a subtle film with subtle humor and subtle quirks, but (at times) is TOO subtle for an American audience that is used to being hit over the head with themes and quirks and violence.
One who is NOT subtle in this film is Neeson as Coxman. He brings the rugged, dependable man of action that one has come to expect during his action-hero phase. Also not subtle (not by a long-shot) is Tom Bateman as the main bad guy, Viking (they all have nicknames) who telegraphs that he is a bad guy by being over-the-top, doing everything but kicking a puppy and twirling his mustache.
Domenick Lombardozzi as Mustang (one of Vikings' henchmen) and Tom Jackson as White Bull (leader of the Native American clan) find the right line between subtlety and over-acting and ground this film (for the most part). The rest of the cast (including John Doman and Emmy Rossum as the town Sheriffs) flit through this film, uneventfully and uninterestingly, neither adding nor detracting from the events. Only William Forsythe, as Neeson's shady brother and Elizabeth Thais (as his wife Anne) manage to rise above things in the limited amount of screen time they are given. And, finally, Laura Dern is wasted in an underwritten - and under-performed - role of Neeson's wife.
I can hear Director Moland screaming to his cast "Less, less...give me less...no more...More...MORE!!!" and the result is an uneven film that is underplayed too much in some ways and overplayed WAY too much in others. And this is too bad, for he had an interesting concept going, he just didn't execute it (at least not with this group of performers) very well. I'll be interested in seeing the original Norwegian film, KRAFTIDIOTEN, to see if it worked there.
Letter Grade: B- (for I applaud what it was trying to do)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Groot Expectations.
James Gunn is back writing and directing the sequel to his surprise 2014 summer hit. And it might be a fresh mix tape slammed into the Walkman, but it’s much of the same again. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing.
In terms of the story, it’s almost a remake of the worst Star Trek film ever made! However, this time its all done for ‘laffs’ and so works much, much better. We join Quill (Chris Pratt, “Jurassic World“), Gamora (Zoe Saldana, “Star Trek Beyond“), Drax (Dave Bautista, “Spectre“) and Rocket (the voice of Bradley Cooper) ‘ever ready’ (LOL) to save the priceless Anulax batteries of their current employees, the Sovereigns, from the ravages of some multi-dimensional being. ‘Helping’ them is Baby Groot, a twig off the old branch from the first film, again voiced (in what must be the easiest money in Hollywood) by Vin Diesel (“Fast and Furious 8“).
The Sovereign’s High Priestess (Elizabeth Debicki, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) provides payment to Gamora in the form of her chained-up evil sister Nebula (a deliciously sulky Karen Gillen, “Dr Who”, “Oculus”) but is then less than impressed when the mercenary Rocket pockets a knapsack full of the batteries. So starts a chase across the galaxy leading Quill to meet Ego (Kurt Russell, “The Hateful 8“) on the planet Ego (LOL) at the very base of his family tree.
The great thing about these films is that they don’t even TRY to be realistic. Characters get towed behind crashing spaceships and – literally- dragged through a wood backwards; others fall hundreds of feet to certain death… no, sorry, a “superhero landing”; and planets and characters are painted with a garishness never ever to be found in nature. You’ll even believe Kurt Russell is 18 again – oh that these effects were available on the NHS!
But the other saving grace for this film is the soundtrack, put together by Tyler Bates as an ode to the 80’s, with wonderful tracks by ELO, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens and a host of others. The film matches the music with the action superbly.
I won’t bother commenting on the acting… who cares with this sort of film! But everyone seems to have fun with Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) being particularly good in reprising his role of Yondu. There are also a wealth of memorable cameos, some of them being laugh out loud moments. While some of the pop culture references might go over a younger audience’s heads, there are still enough great one-liners and comic moments to provide general appeal. Bad guys silhouetted against the moon, ET style, was particularly memorable.
One criticism I would have though is that it’s just too darn long for an “action comedy”. The original film just about scraped into my good books by coming in under the two hour curfew. The sequel however adds another 15 minutes, which should have found its way either onto the cutting room floor or onto the “Blu Ray collector’s edition”. In particular, the final never-ending showdown of CGI manicness went on too long for my liking.
Looking back at the original 2014 review, I gave it a rather stingy FFF rating, which in retrospect I think was a bit mean given its novelty. This time the novelty has worn off, but if anything this is an even more enjoyable romp that the first outing.
James Gunn be warned though: I am unlikely to be so generous with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3” (as threatened) which in my view might be a trip too far for this franchise. My advice would be to take a leaf out of Peter Kay’s “Car Share” book and quit while you’re ahead.
By the way, for those who are interested, the film had a reported budget of $200 million (an impressive “BvS quotient” of 80%!) and the end titles have four “monkeys“, with a humorous reprise of Stan Lee’s astronaut.
In terms of the story, it’s almost a remake of the worst Star Trek film ever made! However, this time its all done for ‘laffs’ and so works much, much better. We join Quill (Chris Pratt, “Jurassic World“), Gamora (Zoe Saldana, “Star Trek Beyond“), Drax (Dave Bautista, “Spectre“) and Rocket (the voice of Bradley Cooper) ‘ever ready’ (LOL) to save the priceless Anulax batteries of their current employees, the Sovereigns, from the ravages of some multi-dimensional being. ‘Helping’ them is Baby Groot, a twig off the old branch from the first film, again voiced (in what must be the easiest money in Hollywood) by Vin Diesel (“Fast and Furious 8“).
The Sovereign’s High Priestess (Elizabeth Debicki, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) provides payment to Gamora in the form of her chained-up evil sister Nebula (a deliciously sulky Karen Gillen, “Dr Who”, “Oculus”) but is then less than impressed when the mercenary Rocket pockets a knapsack full of the batteries. So starts a chase across the galaxy leading Quill to meet Ego (Kurt Russell, “The Hateful 8“) on the planet Ego (LOL) at the very base of his family tree.
The great thing about these films is that they don’t even TRY to be realistic. Characters get towed behind crashing spaceships and – literally- dragged through a wood backwards; others fall hundreds of feet to certain death… no, sorry, a “superhero landing”; and planets and characters are painted with a garishness never ever to be found in nature. You’ll even believe Kurt Russell is 18 again – oh that these effects were available on the NHS!
But the other saving grace for this film is the soundtrack, put together by Tyler Bates as an ode to the 80’s, with wonderful tracks by ELO, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens and a host of others. The film matches the music with the action superbly.
I won’t bother commenting on the acting… who cares with this sort of film! But everyone seems to have fun with Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) being particularly good in reprising his role of Yondu. There are also a wealth of memorable cameos, some of them being laugh out loud moments. While some of the pop culture references might go over a younger audience’s heads, there are still enough great one-liners and comic moments to provide general appeal. Bad guys silhouetted against the moon, ET style, was particularly memorable.
One criticism I would have though is that it’s just too darn long for an “action comedy”. The original film just about scraped into my good books by coming in under the two hour curfew. The sequel however adds another 15 minutes, which should have found its way either onto the cutting room floor or onto the “Blu Ray collector’s edition”. In particular, the final never-ending showdown of CGI manicness went on too long for my liking.
Looking back at the original 2014 review, I gave it a rather stingy FFF rating, which in retrospect I think was a bit mean given its novelty. This time the novelty has worn off, but if anything this is an even more enjoyable romp that the first outing.
James Gunn be warned though: I am unlikely to be so generous with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3” (as threatened) which in my view might be a trip too far for this franchise. My advice would be to take a leaf out of Peter Kay’s “Car Share” book and quit while you’re ahead.
By the way, for those who are interested, the film had a reported budget of $200 million (an impressive “BvS quotient” of 80%!) and the end titles have four “monkeys“, with a humorous reprise of Stan Lee’s astronaut.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) in Movies
May 9, 2022
Fun...with heart
Doctor Strange is my favorite Marvel character. This comes from my college days when one of my roommates had a stack of Dr. Strange comics and I tore through them - one of the few Marvel comics that I have actually read. So I was thrilled to find out that Sam Raimi was coming back (was he ever gone?) to direct the 2nd solo Dr. Strange film, DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS.
And it does not disappoint for while DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS is not quite as “mad” as one would expect by the build up to this film, it delivers solid action by actors playing characters that are easy to root for (or root against) all done with a wink in the eye and a focus on Marvel’s secret weapon…relationships and heart.
You will find no brooding “dark knights” in this one.
Sprightly Directed by Sam Raimi (THE EVIL DEAD), Multiverse (as I will call it from here on out) finds our titular hero (Benedict Cumberbatch) connecting with - and working to save - a multiverse hopping heroine in the form of America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) from an evil that wishes to drain her of her multiverse hopping powers.
What happens next is a multiverse hopping action/adventure/horror/chase film that really shows off the cinematic sensibilities of Director Raimi who’s mark is all over this film…for the better. Multiverse swerves really close to being a horror film, but, fortunately for it’s box office fortunes, remains firmly in the action/adventure/superhero genre. Only a director like Raimi can ride this fine line as well as he has and it works for this film.
Cumberbatch, of course, is terrific as Doctor Stephen Strange and he slides, comfortably, back into the cloak and sling-ring. Benedict Wong (Wong - The Sorcerer Supreme), Rachel McAdams (Dr. Christine Palmer) and Chiwetel Ejiofor (Baron Mordo) all reprise their characters from the first film and they all seem re-energized in their roles for this one while Xochitl Gomez makes a winning debut as America Chavez.
But, make no mistake, the personae that steals this film is Elizabeth Olson as the grieving Wanda Maximoff/Scarlett Witch who Dr. Strange reaches out to when America Chavez falls into his lap. She is outstanding and is really the driving force here. It would not be a misnomer to say that this film easily could have been titled THE SCARLET WITCH IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS.
My one quibble with this film is that it doesn’t go to enough Multiverses to suit my tastes and is not quite as “mad” as one would hope - our hero does spend a rather large amount of time in one multiverse - but that is a minor issue and this one multiverse does bring many fun cameos…cameos that will not be spoiled here.
Which brings up one last point. See this film, if you can, in a theater full of the aforementioned fanboys. The full house IMAX theater that I caught this film in went absolutely nuts when one specific person showed his/her face for their extended cameo and that was a very fun time.
As is DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS - it works well as a stand alone film, but if you want to do “some homework”, check out the Disney+ TV Series WANDAVISION (essential), the first DOCTOR STRANGE movie (good background) and the animated Disney+ series MARVEL’S WHAT IF (some nice callbacks).
And, of course, stay for the end credits…it sets up DOCTOR STRANGE 3, a film that can’t get here soon enough.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And it does not disappoint for while DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS is not quite as “mad” as one would expect by the build up to this film, it delivers solid action by actors playing characters that are easy to root for (or root against) all done with a wink in the eye and a focus on Marvel’s secret weapon…relationships and heart.
You will find no brooding “dark knights” in this one.
Sprightly Directed by Sam Raimi (THE EVIL DEAD), Multiverse (as I will call it from here on out) finds our titular hero (Benedict Cumberbatch) connecting with - and working to save - a multiverse hopping heroine in the form of America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) from an evil that wishes to drain her of her multiverse hopping powers.
What happens next is a multiverse hopping action/adventure/horror/chase film that really shows off the cinematic sensibilities of Director Raimi who’s mark is all over this film…for the better. Multiverse swerves really close to being a horror film, but, fortunately for it’s box office fortunes, remains firmly in the action/adventure/superhero genre. Only a director like Raimi can ride this fine line as well as he has and it works for this film.
Cumberbatch, of course, is terrific as Doctor Stephen Strange and he slides, comfortably, back into the cloak and sling-ring. Benedict Wong (Wong - The Sorcerer Supreme), Rachel McAdams (Dr. Christine Palmer) and Chiwetel Ejiofor (Baron Mordo) all reprise their characters from the first film and they all seem re-energized in their roles for this one while Xochitl Gomez makes a winning debut as America Chavez.
But, make no mistake, the personae that steals this film is Elizabeth Olson as the grieving Wanda Maximoff/Scarlett Witch who Dr. Strange reaches out to when America Chavez falls into his lap. She is outstanding and is really the driving force here. It would not be a misnomer to say that this film easily could have been titled THE SCARLET WITCH IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS.
My one quibble with this film is that it doesn’t go to enough Multiverses to suit my tastes and is not quite as “mad” as one would hope - our hero does spend a rather large amount of time in one multiverse - but that is a minor issue and this one multiverse does bring many fun cameos…cameos that will not be spoiled here.
Which brings up one last point. See this film, if you can, in a theater full of the aforementioned fanboys. The full house IMAX theater that I caught this film in went absolutely nuts when one specific person showed his/her face for their extended cameo and that was a very fun time.
As is DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS - it works well as a stand alone film, but if you want to do “some homework”, check out the Disney+ TV Series WANDAVISION (essential), the first DOCTOR STRANGE movie (good background) and the animated Disney+ series MARVEL’S WHAT IF (some nice callbacks).
And, of course, stay for the end credits…it sets up DOCTOR STRANGE 3, a film that can’t get here soon enough.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Purge: Election Year (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Deathly Dull
The Purge series has set itself as one of the front-runners in modern horror. The first film, starring Ethan Hawke, was a huge success, bringing with it one of the best stories seen in the genre for decades.
Its successor, Anarchy, was warmly received – namely for its greater focus on the night of crime itself, rather than the plight of one family. Naturally, another sequel was always going to be on the cards and Election Year continues the franchise. But does it continue the positive trend?
With only one returning cast member, Frank Grillo’s brooding Leo Barnes, The Purge: Election Year goes for a more political approach than its horror-rooted predecessors and director James DeMonaco was brave in altering the formula. He gets through it – but only by the skin of his teeth.
As a young girl, Senator Charlie Roan (Elizabeth Mitchell) survived the annual night of lawlessness that took the lives of her family members. As a presidential candidate, Roan is determined to end the yearly tradition of blood lust once and for all. When her opponents hatch a deadly scheme, the senator finds herself trapped on the streets of Washington, D.C., just as the latest Purge gets underway. Now, it’s up to Leo Barnes (Frank Grillo), her head of security, to keep her alive during the next 12 hours of mayhem.
The first major stumbling block Election Year faces is its lack of originality. Yes, the basic formula goes for a more political tone but the story itself is a near carbon copy of its predecessor. It’s unfortunate that once again, despite the plight of fans, the production studio continues to overlook the most fascinating part of the Purge, its inception.
Once again we are forced to sit through the hack and slash killings, only this time the acting isn’t as good and the majority of scares are signposted from the off. The ones that aren’t; well they’re in the trailer. It’s such a shame that a series with such promise has resorted to rehashing the same “tricks” to sell tickets.
The cast gel together well but the acting is below par and the dialogue is at times, dreadful with the same three expletives doing the rounds from character to character. Frank Grillo is underused with Elizabeth Mitchell’s preachy politician mistakenly put in the foreground. By far the most interesting person throughout the course of the film is Mykelti Williamson’s deli owner Joe, but he is lumbered with shockingly bad catchphrases.
The cinematography is very plain and the city setting isn’t utilised well at all. Washington should’ve been an exceptional place to helm a film about a night of legalised murder, but instead the audience is confined to its dimly-lit backstreets and alleys.
Overall, The Purge: Election Year is a step in the wrong direction for a series that showed such promise. Creating a film that, despite its intriguing political intentions, is exactly the same as its predecessor is sheer laziness and I don’t like to use this word when reviewing films, but it’s just completely and utterly boring.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/26/deathly-dull-the-purge-election-year-review/
Its successor, Anarchy, was warmly received – namely for its greater focus on the night of crime itself, rather than the plight of one family. Naturally, another sequel was always going to be on the cards and Election Year continues the franchise. But does it continue the positive trend?
With only one returning cast member, Frank Grillo’s brooding Leo Barnes, The Purge: Election Year goes for a more political approach than its horror-rooted predecessors and director James DeMonaco was brave in altering the formula. He gets through it – but only by the skin of his teeth.
As a young girl, Senator Charlie Roan (Elizabeth Mitchell) survived the annual night of lawlessness that took the lives of her family members. As a presidential candidate, Roan is determined to end the yearly tradition of blood lust once and for all. When her opponents hatch a deadly scheme, the senator finds herself trapped on the streets of Washington, D.C., just as the latest Purge gets underway. Now, it’s up to Leo Barnes (Frank Grillo), her head of security, to keep her alive during the next 12 hours of mayhem.
The first major stumbling block Election Year faces is its lack of originality. Yes, the basic formula goes for a more political tone but the story itself is a near carbon copy of its predecessor. It’s unfortunate that once again, despite the plight of fans, the production studio continues to overlook the most fascinating part of the Purge, its inception.
Once again we are forced to sit through the hack and slash killings, only this time the acting isn’t as good and the majority of scares are signposted from the off. The ones that aren’t; well they’re in the trailer. It’s such a shame that a series with such promise has resorted to rehashing the same “tricks” to sell tickets.
The cast gel together well but the acting is below par and the dialogue is at times, dreadful with the same three expletives doing the rounds from character to character. Frank Grillo is underused with Elizabeth Mitchell’s preachy politician mistakenly put in the foreground. By far the most interesting person throughout the course of the film is Mykelti Williamson’s deli owner Joe, but he is lumbered with shockingly bad catchphrases.
The cinematography is very plain and the city setting isn’t utilised well at all. Washington should’ve been an exceptional place to helm a film about a night of legalised murder, but instead the audience is confined to its dimly-lit backstreets and alleys.
Overall, The Purge: Election Year is a step in the wrong direction for a series that showed such promise. Creating a film that, despite its intriguing political intentions, is exactly the same as its predecessor is sheer laziness and I don’t like to use this word when reviewing films, but it’s just completely and utterly boring.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/26/deathly-dull-the-purge-election-year-review/
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Antebellum (2020) in Movies
Apr 2, 2021
Incredibly dull and predictable
Antebellum is a 2020 thriller film from debut writer directors Gerard Bush and Christopher Renz, the trailer for which implied it was a mind bending, time travelling horror story set during the times of slavery in America. However Antebellum never manages to live up to what it promised, instead turning out to be a rather dull and predictable affair.
Antebellum opens on an unknown plantation somewhere in Louisiana, run by confederate soldiers. Janelle Monae stars as Eden, a slave we first see being beaten and branded by the confederate leader general known only as “Him” (Eric Lange). Running the plantation alongside “Him” is sadistic confederate officer Captain Jasper (Jack Huston) and his equally unpleasant wife Elizabeth (Jena Malone). Eden and her fellow slaves, including newcomer Julia (Kiersey Clemons), suffer numerous acts of brutality and oppressions at the hands of confederate soldiers, all the while trying to plan their escape amid the feeling that this plantation isn’t quite what it seems.
Then one night lying in bed after being raped by the general, Eden hears the ringing of a mobile phone and suddenly wakes up in an entirely different era, where she is now know as renowned sociologist Dr Veronica Henley. Veronica has a husband (Marque Richardson) and young daughter and is currently finishing off a book tour, with some help from her best friends Dawn (Gabourey Sidibe) and Sarah (Lily Cowles). Strange things soon start to happen, and a night out with her friends doesn’t quite the way Veronica had expected.
Antebellum’s biggest flaw, and unfortunately a rather pivotal one, is the story itself. I feel like there is meant to be an important message here, but I feel like it’s lost in the stereotypes and predictability. I’m trying to avoid spoilers, but this film is very reminiscent of one by M. Night Shyamalan and has a very similar storyline. I’d actually go so far as saying that his film was at least more interesting. Antebellum seems to have shied away from showing any real intrigue or thrill or horror at all, and other than switching from Eden to Veronica part way in, nothing of any real substance happens until the last 30 minutes of the film. There was even a lack of hints or subtleties pointing to the later plot twist throughout, and this may at least have helped make it a little less dull.
It’s a shame, as this film did have potential. It looks stunning and has been very well made, from the set design to the costumes, it all looks authentic and the score is suitably tense and dramatic too. The opening scene on the plantation alongside the score made for a very intriguing opener, although sadly this was spoilt some by the use questionable slow motion. Performance wise Gabourey Sidibe brings some much needed humour and fun as Veronica’s man hungry best friend, and Janelle Monae is captivating as both Eden and Veronica. This film is lucky Monae is such a talent, as she’s the only reason this was watchable to the very end. It’s just a shame Jena Malone’s Elizabeth is far too over the top to be a believable villain.
Antebellum is obviously trying to make an important statement about slavery and racism packaged into an unusual thriller/horror, but unlike similar films like Jordan Peele’s Get Out, it doesn’t manage to pull it off and instead flounders with a dull and predictable storyline that most could figure out well before the final act. It’s also severely lacking in any real intrigue or horror, and aside from some good performances, there’s nothing memorable about this at all.
Antebellum opens on an unknown plantation somewhere in Louisiana, run by confederate soldiers. Janelle Monae stars as Eden, a slave we first see being beaten and branded by the confederate leader general known only as “Him” (Eric Lange). Running the plantation alongside “Him” is sadistic confederate officer Captain Jasper (Jack Huston) and his equally unpleasant wife Elizabeth (Jena Malone). Eden and her fellow slaves, including newcomer Julia (Kiersey Clemons), suffer numerous acts of brutality and oppressions at the hands of confederate soldiers, all the while trying to plan their escape amid the feeling that this plantation isn’t quite what it seems.
Then one night lying in bed after being raped by the general, Eden hears the ringing of a mobile phone and suddenly wakes up in an entirely different era, where she is now know as renowned sociologist Dr Veronica Henley. Veronica has a husband (Marque Richardson) and young daughter and is currently finishing off a book tour, with some help from her best friends Dawn (Gabourey Sidibe) and Sarah (Lily Cowles). Strange things soon start to happen, and a night out with her friends doesn’t quite the way Veronica had expected.
Antebellum’s biggest flaw, and unfortunately a rather pivotal one, is the story itself. I feel like there is meant to be an important message here, but I feel like it’s lost in the stereotypes and predictability. I’m trying to avoid spoilers, but this film is very reminiscent of one by M. Night Shyamalan and has a very similar storyline. I’d actually go so far as saying that his film was at least more interesting. Antebellum seems to have shied away from showing any real intrigue or thrill or horror at all, and other than switching from Eden to Veronica part way in, nothing of any real substance happens until the last 30 minutes of the film. There was even a lack of hints or subtleties pointing to the later plot twist throughout, and this may at least have helped make it a little less dull.
It’s a shame, as this film did have potential. It looks stunning and has been very well made, from the set design to the costumes, it all looks authentic and the score is suitably tense and dramatic too. The opening scene on the plantation alongside the score made for a very intriguing opener, although sadly this was spoilt some by the use questionable slow motion. Performance wise Gabourey Sidibe brings some much needed humour and fun as Veronica’s man hungry best friend, and Janelle Monae is captivating as both Eden and Veronica. This film is lucky Monae is such a talent, as she’s the only reason this was watchable to the very end. It’s just a shame Jena Malone’s Elizabeth is far too over the top to be a believable villain.
Antebellum is obviously trying to make an important statement about slavery and racism packaged into an unusual thriller/horror, but unlike similar films like Jordan Peele’s Get Out, it doesn’t manage to pull it off and instead flounders with a dull and predictable storyline that most could figure out well before the final act. It’s also severely lacking in any real intrigue or horror, and aside from some good performances, there’s nothing memorable about this at all.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Horrific Beasts and How to Avoid Them.
I seem to be in a bit of a minority in quite liking Ridley Scott’s last Alien outing – 2012’s “Prometheus”: a heady, if at times ponderous, theory to the origins of man. The first hour of that film is really good. But for me, what made the original 1979 film so enthralling was the life cycle of the ‘traditional’ Xenomorph aliens through egg to evil hatchling to vicious killing machine. This somewhat got lost with “Prometheus” with a range of alien-like-things ranging from wiggly black goo to something more familiar… and frankly I was confused. Some – repeat, some – of the explanation for that diversity of forms in “Prometheus” is made clearer in the sequel “Alien: Covenant”.
“Covenant” (named again after the spaceship at its heart) is a follow-on sequel to “Prometheus”, so it is worth re-watching it if you can before a cinema trip. At the end of that film we saw Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) and a reconstructed android David (Michael Fassbender, “Steve Jobs“) flying off in an alien craft still loaded with its cargo of nasty alien black goo. Shaw had a mission to seek out The Engineer’s home world – named “Paradise” – to find out why after creating man they were intent on going back to finish them off with a WMD. A neat prologue has been released which documents this… here:
We pick up the action 10 years later in a totally improbable 2104. (Give us a break writing team! [Story by Jack Paglen and Michael Green; screenplay by John Logan and Dante Harper]. We know they won’t have got through planning permission on the third Heathrow runway by then, let alone invented interplanetary travel…! 2504, maybe!)
Daniels (Katherine Waterston, “Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them“) has just suffered a sudden bereavement (an uncredited James Franco – – blink and you’ll miss him). She has also been rudely awakened from hypersleep due to a sudden system mishap: no, not to find Chris Pratt there like “Passengers“, but by the ship’s android Walter (also Michael Fassbender) who’s also revived the rest of the crew. While effecting repairs they receive a garbled John Denver track mysteriously beamed to them from an earth-like planet not too far away. As this might be a suitable homestead, and as spending weeks more in hypersleep is unattractive, Captain Oram (Billy Crudup, “Spotlight“) votes to check it out, against Daniels’ strong objections. Needless to say, this proves to be a BIG MISTAKE as the new film neatly links hands with the first film.
Kick-ass… Katherine Waterston being careful not to slip in the shower.
There’s a limit to what more I can say about the film without delivering spoilers (so I have added a few more comments in the spoiler section BELOW the trailer). It’s a far more action-oriented film than “Prometheus” and has enough jump scares and gore to please most Alien fans. (In fact, it’s a surprise to me that it got a UK “15” certificate rather than an “18”: how much more violence do you need to show in the film?) A shower scene towards the end of the film is particularly effective and will likely put an end to relaxing shower sex for many people for good!
It also looks visually stunning (cinematography is by Dariusz Wolski (“The Martian“, “Pirates of the Caribbean”) with location shooting in Milford Sound in New Zealand. The special effects are also a cut-above the normal CGI with a devastated Pompeii-like city, a picture of blacks and greys, being particularly effective.
In the acting stakes it is really all down to Waterston and Fassbinder. I wasn’t a great fan of Waterston in “Fantastic Beasts” – a bit insipid I thought – but here she adopts Ripley’s kick-ass mantle with ease but blends it beautifully with doe-eyed vulnerability. Some of her scenes reminded me strongly of Demi Moore in “Ghost”. Fassbinder is fascinating to watch with his dual roles of Walter and David, both slightly different versions of the same being. And the special effects around the Fassbinder-on-Fassbinder action, tending somewhat towards the homoerotic in places, are well done.
Unfortunately the rest of the crew get little in the way of background development, which limits the impact of the inevitable demises. They are also about as clinically stupid as the spaceship crew in “Life” in some of their actions; I guess you could put some of this down to the effects of panic, but in other cases you might see it as a simple cleansing of the gene pool in Darwinian fashion.
Also making uncredited guest appearances are Guy Pearce as Weyland (in a flashback scene) and Noomi Rapace.
Music is “by” Jed Kurzel, but to be honest he does little than wrap around re-versions of the original Jerry Goldsmith classics: not that this is a bad thing, since those themes are iconic and a joy to hear again on the big screen.
My expectations for this movie were sky-high, as it was hinted as a return to form for the franchise. And in many ways it was, with a “man, Gods and androids” theme adding depth to the traditional anatomical-bursting gore. But to be honest, some of the storytelling was highly predictable, and I left slightly disappointed with the overall effort. If my expectations were an 11/10, my reality was more like a 7/10. It’s still a good film, and I look forward to watching it again. But perhaps this is a franchise that has really run its course now for Mr Scott and he should look to his next “Martian”-type movie for a more novel foundation to build his next movie “log cabin on the lake” on.
“Covenant” (named again after the spaceship at its heart) is a follow-on sequel to “Prometheus”, so it is worth re-watching it if you can before a cinema trip. At the end of that film we saw Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) and a reconstructed android David (Michael Fassbender, “Steve Jobs“) flying off in an alien craft still loaded with its cargo of nasty alien black goo. Shaw had a mission to seek out The Engineer’s home world – named “Paradise” – to find out why after creating man they were intent on going back to finish them off with a WMD. A neat prologue has been released which documents this… here:
We pick up the action 10 years later in a totally improbable 2104. (Give us a break writing team! [Story by Jack Paglen and Michael Green; screenplay by John Logan and Dante Harper]. We know they won’t have got through planning permission on the third Heathrow runway by then, let alone invented interplanetary travel…! 2504, maybe!)
Daniels (Katherine Waterston, “Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them“) has just suffered a sudden bereavement (an uncredited James Franco – – blink and you’ll miss him). She has also been rudely awakened from hypersleep due to a sudden system mishap: no, not to find Chris Pratt there like “Passengers“, but by the ship’s android Walter (also Michael Fassbender) who’s also revived the rest of the crew. While effecting repairs they receive a garbled John Denver track mysteriously beamed to them from an earth-like planet not too far away. As this might be a suitable homestead, and as spending weeks more in hypersleep is unattractive, Captain Oram (Billy Crudup, “Spotlight“) votes to check it out, against Daniels’ strong objections. Needless to say, this proves to be a BIG MISTAKE as the new film neatly links hands with the first film.
Kick-ass… Katherine Waterston being careful not to slip in the shower.
There’s a limit to what more I can say about the film without delivering spoilers (so I have added a few more comments in the spoiler section BELOW the trailer). It’s a far more action-oriented film than “Prometheus” and has enough jump scares and gore to please most Alien fans. (In fact, it’s a surprise to me that it got a UK “15” certificate rather than an “18”: how much more violence do you need to show in the film?) A shower scene towards the end of the film is particularly effective and will likely put an end to relaxing shower sex for many people for good!
It also looks visually stunning (cinematography is by Dariusz Wolski (“The Martian“, “Pirates of the Caribbean”) with location shooting in Milford Sound in New Zealand. The special effects are also a cut-above the normal CGI with a devastated Pompeii-like city, a picture of blacks and greys, being particularly effective.
In the acting stakes it is really all down to Waterston and Fassbinder. I wasn’t a great fan of Waterston in “Fantastic Beasts” – a bit insipid I thought – but here she adopts Ripley’s kick-ass mantle with ease but blends it beautifully with doe-eyed vulnerability. Some of her scenes reminded me strongly of Demi Moore in “Ghost”. Fassbinder is fascinating to watch with his dual roles of Walter and David, both slightly different versions of the same being. And the special effects around the Fassbinder-on-Fassbinder action, tending somewhat towards the homoerotic in places, are well done.
Unfortunately the rest of the crew get little in the way of background development, which limits the impact of the inevitable demises. They are also about as clinically stupid as the spaceship crew in “Life” in some of their actions; I guess you could put some of this down to the effects of panic, but in other cases you might see it as a simple cleansing of the gene pool in Darwinian fashion.
Also making uncredited guest appearances are Guy Pearce as Weyland (in a flashback scene) and Noomi Rapace.
Music is “by” Jed Kurzel, but to be honest he does little than wrap around re-versions of the original Jerry Goldsmith classics: not that this is a bad thing, since those themes are iconic and a joy to hear again on the big screen.
My expectations for this movie were sky-high, as it was hinted as a return to form for the franchise. And in many ways it was, with a “man, Gods and androids” theme adding depth to the traditional anatomical-bursting gore. But to be honest, some of the storytelling was highly predictable, and I left slightly disappointed with the overall effort. If my expectations were an 11/10, my reality was more like a 7/10. It’s still a good film, and I look forward to watching it again. But perhaps this is a franchise that has really run its course now for Mr Scott and he should look to his next “Martian”-type movie for a more novel foundation to build his next movie “log cabin on the lake” on.