Search
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Men in Black International (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
When Men In Black 3 came out 7 years ago I wasn't convinced they'd be able to follow the first two films, but it's probably become my favourite of the franchise for that ending alone. Seeing the trailers for International I was a little dubious but knowing how I felt the last time I was slightly optimistic about it.
*Eyes closed. Pinch bridge of nose. Slow, pained exhale.*
I hate it when the internet is right, it sets a very bad precedent. This film was not good, and it was fairly evident early on. Considering that at the beginning of the film we're seeing a kid discovering aliens for the first time I can't fathom how there is so little wonder and excitement in it. I found myself thinking it was cute, but cute isn't enough to kickstart a film.
I hoped for a while that it was just a slow burner, but after a third of the film had passed it was difficult to hold on to that hope. There was almost nothing that was exciting in it to make you want to ever see it again.
Somehow the effects have got both better and worse at the same time. The aliens in general look a little shoddy, apart from the main evil duo. There are some moments where they turn into a gaseous entity, their appearance changes to a galaxy like blur, and it's actually pretty beautiful to see... but then they turn back.
Tessa Thompson plays our obsessed wannabe woman in black. Relatively speaking her performance was quite good. I've only seen her in things from the last couple of years, and apart from Ragnarok I haven't been overly impressed with the roles she's played but Molly was a nice addition to her roster.
Chris Hemsworth... oh my dear boy... I'm not convinced that he should do comedy. Thor is great in Ragnarok but outside of that I'm not overly fond. There's only so far handsome and a little dumb can get you, and I think Thor and Kevin really used all of that up. When he's so good at drama I'm not sure why he keeps picking the same type of comedic pieces, as a dramatic actor in 12 Strong and Bad Times At The El Royale he was great and I really want to go back and see more of his serious roles. H in this is basically just Kevin from Ghostbusters in a black suit with a few more brain cells. It's a terribly scripted role and a massively disappointing lead in a series that has so much possibility behind it.
The standout performance for me is from Kumail Nanjiani as Pawny. Pawny is fantastically scripted, to the point that I wondered if someone else had written his part. The wonderful thing about it was that I could feel Nanjiani in everything that Pawny was doing, if you'd had him as a real-life character it would have been (almost) exactly the same performance. The only times I laughed were Pawny moments and I was genuinely annoyed when they were interrupted by the rest of the film.
Our four main supporting actors are a bit of a mix. Emma Thompson gives a repeat performance as O and ooooo is she glorious as always. Liam Neeson plays High T, the head of the London branch of MIB, it's fairly non-descript, sadly he's no Rip Torn. Rafe Spall plays Agent C who's a bit of a snitch. He has a rather slow start and when we meet him it's not a great scene for anyone involved, I found him to be terribly boring but thankfully his part does improve as we get deeper into it. Lastly we've got the surprise inclusion of Rebecca Ferguson as H's ex-girlfriend, Riza... I just... what was the point of her character?
"But the bad guy fights must have been good?"... am I the only one that felt like there wasn't really a bad guy in this? Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of options but we don't see enough of any of them to be really invested in the fact that they're bad. And when it comes to action scenes... were there really any of them either? I just... I can't even... ugh...
Considering I wasn't buzzing about this before I went in I'm amazed that I felt so disappointed by it. There was very little to enjoy beyond Nanjiani's Pawny, and hardly anything to workout as you watched because the trailers made it fairly obvious what was going to happen. You always hope that new instalments of series are going to stand up to its predecessors or at least not be so shit that they make you regret spending time watching it... yeah...
I want to like this more and I may give it a second chance after the slight success of Aladdin's second viewing, but no matter what happens, this is still going to be ranked fourth in the series.
What you should do
I really wouldn't bother watching this, spend your time rewatching the previous three instalments.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like the only amazing thing from this film, one Pawny, please.
*Eyes closed. Pinch bridge of nose. Slow, pained exhale.*
I hate it when the internet is right, it sets a very bad precedent. This film was not good, and it was fairly evident early on. Considering that at the beginning of the film we're seeing a kid discovering aliens for the first time I can't fathom how there is so little wonder and excitement in it. I found myself thinking it was cute, but cute isn't enough to kickstart a film.
I hoped for a while that it was just a slow burner, but after a third of the film had passed it was difficult to hold on to that hope. There was almost nothing that was exciting in it to make you want to ever see it again.
Somehow the effects have got both better and worse at the same time. The aliens in general look a little shoddy, apart from the main evil duo. There are some moments where they turn into a gaseous entity, their appearance changes to a galaxy like blur, and it's actually pretty beautiful to see... but then they turn back.
Tessa Thompson plays our obsessed wannabe woman in black. Relatively speaking her performance was quite good. I've only seen her in things from the last couple of years, and apart from Ragnarok I haven't been overly impressed with the roles she's played but Molly was a nice addition to her roster.
Chris Hemsworth... oh my dear boy... I'm not convinced that he should do comedy. Thor is great in Ragnarok but outside of that I'm not overly fond. There's only so far handsome and a little dumb can get you, and I think Thor and Kevin really used all of that up. When he's so good at drama I'm not sure why he keeps picking the same type of comedic pieces, as a dramatic actor in 12 Strong and Bad Times At The El Royale he was great and I really want to go back and see more of his serious roles. H in this is basically just Kevin from Ghostbusters in a black suit with a few more brain cells. It's a terribly scripted role and a massively disappointing lead in a series that has so much possibility behind it.
The standout performance for me is from Kumail Nanjiani as Pawny. Pawny is fantastically scripted, to the point that I wondered if someone else had written his part. The wonderful thing about it was that I could feel Nanjiani in everything that Pawny was doing, if you'd had him as a real-life character it would have been (almost) exactly the same performance. The only times I laughed were Pawny moments and I was genuinely annoyed when they were interrupted by the rest of the film.
Our four main supporting actors are a bit of a mix. Emma Thompson gives a repeat performance as O and ooooo is she glorious as always. Liam Neeson plays High T, the head of the London branch of MIB, it's fairly non-descript, sadly he's no Rip Torn. Rafe Spall plays Agent C who's a bit of a snitch. He has a rather slow start and when we meet him it's not a great scene for anyone involved, I found him to be terribly boring but thankfully his part does improve as we get deeper into it. Lastly we've got the surprise inclusion of Rebecca Ferguson as H's ex-girlfriend, Riza... I just... what was the point of her character?
"But the bad guy fights must have been good?"... am I the only one that felt like there wasn't really a bad guy in this? Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of options but we don't see enough of any of them to be really invested in the fact that they're bad. And when it comes to action scenes... were there really any of them either? I just... I can't even... ugh...
Considering I wasn't buzzing about this before I went in I'm amazed that I felt so disappointed by it. There was very little to enjoy beyond Nanjiani's Pawny, and hardly anything to workout as you watched because the trailers made it fairly obvious what was going to happen. You always hope that new instalments of series are going to stand up to its predecessors or at least not be so shit that they make you regret spending time watching it... yeah...
I want to like this more and I may give it a second chance after the slight success of Aladdin's second viewing, but no matter what happens, this is still going to be ranked fourth in the series.
What you should do
I really wouldn't bother watching this, spend your time rewatching the previous three instalments.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like the only amazing thing from this film, one Pawny, please.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Beautiful Creatures (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Hollywood has seemed to turn to books these days for inspiration to try and bring audiences the latest and greatest to the big screen. Has the industry turned to teen novels to solely follow in the footsteps of the widely known Twilight Saga success to in turn bring more money to the box office? It certainly wouldn’t be a bad idea to do so. With the success of the over saturated archetype of vampires and zombies, the path through the supernatural teen based stories has now led us to witches, or should I say casters. Based on the best selling American young adult series by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl, Beautiful Creatures is the first novel in the best selling series. The story is based in a small conservative town of Gatlin, South Carolina and is at first about Ethan Wate (Alden Ehrenreich) a seventeen year old young man who lives with his father that is stuck in morning over the death of his wife and the house keeper Amma (Viola Davis) who is also the towns all knowing librarian. Ethan dreams and hopes that one day he will break free of the small town of Gatlin and go to college far away. Lately though, he has been having a recurring dream of a young woman waiting for him on a Civil War battlefield. Every time he is close to reaching her a lightning bolt strikes just like a gunshot and he dies. Thankfully, it is only a dream but he doesn’t seem to be able to think about anything else other than the woman in his dreams and falls in love with this mystery woman, hoping one day he will be united with the girl of his dreams.
With the beginning of the first day of school a newcomer named Lena Duchannes (Alice Englert) seems to be an outcast because of her families history. Capturing the attention of Ethan he becomes more and more intrigued with her, despite the awful things that the other classmates are saying about her. Lena is the niece of Macon Ravenwood (Jeremy Irons), the owner of the one and only mysterious Gothic Ravenwood Manor. Lena has uncontrollable powers proving that some of what her classmates have been saying is true. Lena has until her sixteenth birthday to undergo the Claiming, a process that throughout the years makes a caster go to the light side or the dark side. The film also features an allstar cast such as: Alden Ehrenreich, (“Tetro”), Emmy Rossum, Thomas Mann, Emma Thompson, Rounding out the cast are Eileen Atkins, Margo Martindale, Zoey Deutch, Tiffany Boone, Rachel Brosnahan, Kyle Gallner, Pruitt Taylor Vince and Sam Gilroy.
The film Beautiful Creatures is a supernatural love story with some of the same ideas and themes as most of these supernatural teen movies based off of best selling novels. However, Beautiful Creatures was a refreshing take on the story of two young lovers, one who is human and the other who is a supernatural being. The scenery and use of the deep southern backdrops added to the mystery of the story. I have not read the book though I plan to, I am unable to comment on how close the movie was to the book. The special effects in the film were not overdone or out of place and were appropriate to each specific scene. Some comedic relief is found throughout the film and is not out of place. The flow of the story is also flawless including the music used for the soundtrack.
This film has been rated PG-13 for violence, scary images and some sexual material. I would recommend this to audiences of a variety of ages from young teen to older adult. Yes this film may have some similarities to other teen/supernatural films but all in all it is a film I definitely would recommend to our readers and I can’t wait for the second installment.
With the beginning of the first day of school a newcomer named Lena Duchannes (Alice Englert) seems to be an outcast because of her families history. Capturing the attention of Ethan he becomes more and more intrigued with her, despite the awful things that the other classmates are saying about her. Lena is the niece of Macon Ravenwood (Jeremy Irons), the owner of the one and only mysterious Gothic Ravenwood Manor. Lena has uncontrollable powers proving that some of what her classmates have been saying is true. Lena has until her sixteenth birthday to undergo the Claiming, a process that throughout the years makes a caster go to the light side or the dark side. The film also features an allstar cast such as: Alden Ehrenreich, (“Tetro”), Emmy Rossum, Thomas Mann, Emma Thompson, Rounding out the cast are Eileen Atkins, Margo Martindale, Zoey Deutch, Tiffany Boone, Rachel Brosnahan, Kyle Gallner, Pruitt Taylor Vince and Sam Gilroy.
The film Beautiful Creatures is a supernatural love story with some of the same ideas and themes as most of these supernatural teen movies based off of best selling novels. However, Beautiful Creatures was a refreshing take on the story of two young lovers, one who is human and the other who is a supernatural being. The scenery and use of the deep southern backdrops added to the mystery of the story. I have not read the book though I plan to, I am unable to comment on how close the movie was to the book. The special effects in the film were not overdone or out of place and were appropriate to each specific scene. Some comedic relief is found throughout the film and is not out of place. The flow of the story is also flawless including the music used for the soundtrack.
This film has been rated PG-13 for violence, scary images and some sexual material. I would recommend this to audiences of a variety of ages from young teen to older adult. Yes this film may have some similarities to other teen/supernatural films but all in all it is a film I definitely would recommend to our readers and I can’t wait for the second installment.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The moment has come for every budding witch and wizard to say goodbye to the cash cow that has been the Harry Potter franchise and what a send-off he’s been given.
David Yates has once again returned to helm the final instalment in the most profitable movie franchise in history and whilst he has created a near perfect film technically, it falls down on a few points like a lack of character development and overly rushed script.
Deathly Hallows Part 2 picks up immediately from the 1st chapter with a quick reminder of what preceded it. This is a welcome start as the film feels a little disjointed in parts and if you’re not a loyal Harry Potter fan; chances are you won’t understand what’s going on.
Voldermort is gaining power as Harry, Ron and Hermione search for the missing horcruxes in order to destroy them and cripple the fearsome villain. Their travels bring them back to where it all started; Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardy; which has changed since we saw it last. Hogwarts has been rendered fabulously and is perhaps the best use of the 3D technology in the entire film. The sweeping shots of the lush, yet foreboding landscape surrounding the iconic castle are given new depth as we literally fly through the sky and smash through castle windows.
The decision to convert the film into 3D was met with mixed reviews from critics who said it would spoil a film which didn’t need it. To some extent this is true, there is a definite lack of focus throughout the film as the eye tries to focus on too many things at once, but it is far from the worst 3D conversion I’ve seen.
Performance wise, everyone has upped their game. The main trio have developed strong bonds with each other in real life and this really shows in the film as they battle against near certain death to protect one another. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) is perhaps the weakest of the three in this film with Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron) tied in first place. Their quiet demeanour is excitingly suffocating and brings a sense of claustrophobia to the film.
Of our veteran stars, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman who play Professor McGonnagall and new headmaster Severus Snape are by far the standouts in a cast which are given a much greater chance to shine in this film. For a woman of Smiths age (76), she is exceptional and her performance really shows why Chris Columbus thought she would be perfect for the role all those years ago. Alan Rickman has been a favourite throughout the series and hasn’t let Potter fans down here, his final scenes are heart-breaking and worthy of a few tears.
Most of the other favourites make a welcome return, though all of them feel like cardboard cutouts, because their speech is limited to a couple of lines. Jim Broadbent (Horace Slughorn), Emma Thompson (Sybil Trelawny), Miriam Margolyes (Pomona Sprout) all make cameos in the film which is both a lovely and disappointing sight to see.
Ralph Fiennes does a lot of shouting throughout the film as vicious enemy Lord Voldermort but he performs well and does the role justice.
The only real flaw in the characters is that many of them aren’t given enough screen time. Helena Bonham Carter’s fabulous Bellatrix Lestrange is unfortunately lost as the army of Death Eaters grows and many other brilliant characters are only seen, not heard. (David Thewlis – Remus Lupin is the most prominent example of this.)
Being just over two hours in length means that this film is by far the shortest of the bunch and this shows in its pacing. Unfortunately, cutting the running time to this length has meant that certain scenes feel a little disjointed and certain parts, which were gut-wrenching in the book aren’t given enough time to digest in the film, which is disappointing seeing as an extra 10 or 20 minutes would’ve improved things greatly.
The climatic battle of Hogwarts as it’s been titled is fabulous and the special effects come into their own here as giants, acromantulas, death eaters and students pit themselves against one another with terrifying results. It’s a real treat to behold.
Yates’ cinematography is superb and every single shot he uses is beautiful in its own way. In one particular scene, located in the never before seen boathouse at Hogwarts, Yates manages to get around the 12A certificate which has blighted the last 4 films by shooting through frosted glass. I won’t spoil the scene for you, but it’s an emotional part of the film.
Moreover, the limbo scenes between Harry and Dumbledore, which were a low point in the novel, have been pleasingly shortened so that enough time is given to the main storylines. Unfortunately, the much talked about epilogue is too short and is a slightly anti-climatic send off for a film franchise that has been around for 10 years.
Overall, Harry Potter gets the send-off he deserved in a film which returns the magic and sparkle lost as the movies got darker. Yates has crafted a beautifully shot movie which doesn’t forget the action packed nature of its source material. Coupled with brilliant special effects and excellent performances by everyone involved, it’s a winning formula all round. The Harry Potter film franchise may have had a few lapses and a couple of disappointing outings, but thankfully the Deathly Hallows has made sure it ends on a high note. It may finish here, but when it ends this well, it most certainly won’t be forgotten.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/18/harry-potter-the-deathly-hallows-part-2-2011/
David Yates has once again returned to helm the final instalment in the most profitable movie franchise in history and whilst he has created a near perfect film technically, it falls down on a few points like a lack of character development and overly rushed script.
Deathly Hallows Part 2 picks up immediately from the 1st chapter with a quick reminder of what preceded it. This is a welcome start as the film feels a little disjointed in parts and if you’re not a loyal Harry Potter fan; chances are you won’t understand what’s going on.
Voldermort is gaining power as Harry, Ron and Hermione search for the missing horcruxes in order to destroy them and cripple the fearsome villain. Their travels bring them back to where it all started; Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardy; which has changed since we saw it last. Hogwarts has been rendered fabulously and is perhaps the best use of the 3D technology in the entire film. The sweeping shots of the lush, yet foreboding landscape surrounding the iconic castle are given new depth as we literally fly through the sky and smash through castle windows.
The decision to convert the film into 3D was met with mixed reviews from critics who said it would spoil a film which didn’t need it. To some extent this is true, there is a definite lack of focus throughout the film as the eye tries to focus on too many things at once, but it is far from the worst 3D conversion I’ve seen.
Performance wise, everyone has upped their game. The main trio have developed strong bonds with each other in real life and this really shows in the film as they battle against near certain death to protect one another. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) is perhaps the weakest of the three in this film with Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron) tied in first place. Their quiet demeanour is excitingly suffocating and brings a sense of claustrophobia to the film.
Of our veteran stars, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman who play Professor McGonnagall and new headmaster Severus Snape are by far the standouts in a cast which are given a much greater chance to shine in this film. For a woman of Smiths age (76), she is exceptional and her performance really shows why Chris Columbus thought she would be perfect for the role all those years ago. Alan Rickman has been a favourite throughout the series and hasn’t let Potter fans down here, his final scenes are heart-breaking and worthy of a few tears.
Most of the other favourites make a welcome return, though all of them feel like cardboard cutouts, because their speech is limited to a couple of lines. Jim Broadbent (Horace Slughorn), Emma Thompson (Sybil Trelawny), Miriam Margolyes (Pomona Sprout) all make cameos in the film which is both a lovely and disappointing sight to see.
Ralph Fiennes does a lot of shouting throughout the film as vicious enemy Lord Voldermort but he performs well and does the role justice.
The only real flaw in the characters is that many of them aren’t given enough screen time. Helena Bonham Carter’s fabulous Bellatrix Lestrange is unfortunately lost as the army of Death Eaters grows and many other brilliant characters are only seen, not heard. (David Thewlis – Remus Lupin is the most prominent example of this.)
Being just over two hours in length means that this film is by far the shortest of the bunch and this shows in its pacing. Unfortunately, cutting the running time to this length has meant that certain scenes feel a little disjointed and certain parts, which were gut-wrenching in the book aren’t given enough time to digest in the film, which is disappointing seeing as an extra 10 or 20 minutes would’ve improved things greatly.
The climatic battle of Hogwarts as it’s been titled is fabulous and the special effects come into their own here as giants, acromantulas, death eaters and students pit themselves against one another with terrifying results. It’s a real treat to behold.
Yates’ cinematography is superb and every single shot he uses is beautiful in its own way. In one particular scene, located in the never before seen boathouse at Hogwarts, Yates manages to get around the 12A certificate which has blighted the last 4 films by shooting through frosted glass. I won’t spoil the scene for you, but it’s an emotional part of the film.
Moreover, the limbo scenes between Harry and Dumbledore, which were a low point in the novel, have been pleasingly shortened so that enough time is given to the main storylines. Unfortunately, the much talked about epilogue is too short and is a slightly anti-climatic send off for a film franchise that has been around for 10 years.
Overall, Harry Potter gets the send-off he deserved in a film which returns the magic and sparkle lost as the movies got darker. Yates has crafted a beautifully shot movie which doesn’t forget the action packed nature of its source material. Coupled with brilliant special effects and excellent performances by everyone involved, it’s a winning formula all round. The Harry Potter film franchise may have had a few lapses and a couple of disappointing outings, but thankfully the Deathly Hallows has made sure it ends on a high note. It may finish here, but when it ends this well, it most certainly won’t be forgotten.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/18/harry-potter-the-deathly-hallows-part-2-2011/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
More CGI animals in another adaptation of a franchise that has been around since the 1920s. I do so love Eddie Murphy's comedy portrayal, am I ready for a period appropriate version?
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
