Search
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated The Trump Prophecy (2018) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019 (Updated Mar 24, 2019)
My prophetic vision of how bad it could get
Contains spoilers, click to show
Part of my bill-paying job is managing our store’s DVD section. This past Tuesday, I opened our new release boxes to find a number of copies of a movie called "The Trump Prophecy." I got physically ill. Not ill enough to go home, but I could feel my stomach turn. It wasn’t because I was holding in my hands a movie about Donald Trump, though, because I can make it through many a title about the Bedswerver-in-Chief. There’s something worse: Associating support of him with Christian faith.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Lestranger than fiction.
I must be one of the last people to watch this in the cinema, thanks to an irritating bout of sickness and – well – frankly total bloody apathy! For me this is the franchise that nobody asked for and nobody wanted. (Well, “nobody” is probably overstating the case, since there is probably a bunch of Potterheads out there who are shouting at me right now). But judging from the opinion of my daughter-in-law, who could win “Mastermind” with her knowledge of the original Potter series as her specialist subject, I am certainly not alone in my lack of enthusiasm.
The Plot
I’d really love to tell you about the plot. I really would! But I would struggle to pull all the multitude of strands together from J.K. Rowling’s story and coherently explain them to anyone. If Rowling had put ten thousand monkeys (not a million – it’s no bloody Shakespeare) into a room with typewriters and locked the door I wouldn’t be surprised.
Let me try at a high level….. The arch-criminal wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is being tortured in ‘Trump Tower’, but manages to escape and flees to Paris in pursuit of a mysterious circus performer called Credence (Ezra Miller) and his bewitched companion Nagini (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) played fetchingly by Claudia Kim. Someone needs to stop him, and all eyes are on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). But he is unable to do so, since he and Grindelwald are “closer than brothers” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). So a reluctant and UK-grounded Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is smuggled into the danger zone… which suits him just fine since his love Tina (Katherine Waterston) is working for the ministry there, and the couple are currently estranged due to a (topical) bout of ‘Fake News’.
Throw in a potential love triangle between Newt, his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) and old Hogwart’s schoolmate Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and about a half dozen other sub-plots and you have… well… a complete bugger’s muggle – – sorry – – muddle.
A plot that’s all at sea
Above all, I really can’t explain the crux of the plot. A venerable diarrhoea of exposition in a crypt, during an inexplicably quiet fifteen minutes (given ‘im-who-can-be-named is next door with about a thousand other people!) left me completely bewildered. A bizarre event at sea (no spoilers) would seem to make absolutely NO SENSE when considered with another reveal at the end of the film. I thought I must have clearly missed something… or I’d just not been intelligent enough to process the information…. or…. it was actually completely bonkers! Actually, I think it’s the latter: in desperation I went on a fan site that tried to explain the plot. While it was explained there, the explanation aligned with what I thought had happened: but it made no mention of the ridiculousness of the random coincidence involved!
The turns
The film’s a mess. Which is a shame since everyone involved tries really hard. Depp oozes evil very effectively (he proves that nicely on arriving in Paris, and doubles-down about 5 minutes later: #veryverydark). Redmayne replays his Newt-act effectively but once again (and I see I made the same comments in my “Fantastic Beasts” review) his character mumbles again so much that many of his lines are unintelligible.
I also complained last time that the excellent actress Katherine Waterston was criminally underused as the tentative love interest Tina. this trend unfortunately continues unabated in this film…. you’ll struggle afterwards to write down what she actually did in this film.
Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol, looking for all the world in some scenes like Rachel Weisz) reprise their roles in a sub-plot that goes nowhere in particular.
Of the newcomers, Jude Law as Dumbledore is a class-act but has very little screen time: hopefully he will get more to do next time around. Zoë Kravitz impresses as Leta.
Wizards of the screen
As you would expect from a David Yates / David Heyman Potter collaboration, the product design, costume design and special effects are all excellent. Some scenes are truly impressive – an ‘explosion’ in a Parisian garret is particularly spectacular.
But special effects alone do not a great film make. Many reviews I’ve seen complain that this was a ‘filler’ film… a set-up film for the rest of the series. And I can understand that view. If you analyse the film overall, virtually NOTHING of importance actually happens: it’s like the “Order of the Phoenix” of the prequels.
Final Thoughts
I dragged myself along to see this one because “I thought I should”. The third in the series will really need to sparkle to make me want to see it. If J.K. Rowling were to take me advice (she won’t – she NEVER returns my calls!) then she would sculpt the story-arc but leave the screenwriting to someone better. The blame for this one, I’m afraid, lies at Rowling’s door alone.
The Plot
I’d really love to tell you about the plot. I really would! But I would struggle to pull all the multitude of strands together from J.K. Rowling’s story and coherently explain them to anyone. If Rowling had put ten thousand monkeys (not a million – it’s no bloody Shakespeare) into a room with typewriters and locked the door I wouldn’t be surprised.
Let me try at a high level….. The arch-criminal wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is being tortured in ‘Trump Tower’, but manages to escape and flees to Paris in pursuit of a mysterious circus performer called Credence (Ezra Miller) and his bewitched companion Nagini (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) played fetchingly by Claudia Kim. Someone needs to stop him, and all eyes are on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). But he is unable to do so, since he and Grindelwald are “closer than brothers” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). So a reluctant and UK-grounded Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is smuggled into the danger zone… which suits him just fine since his love Tina (Katherine Waterston) is working for the ministry there, and the couple are currently estranged due to a (topical) bout of ‘Fake News’.
Throw in a potential love triangle between Newt, his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) and old Hogwart’s schoolmate Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and about a half dozen other sub-plots and you have… well… a complete bugger’s muggle – – sorry – – muddle.
A plot that’s all at sea
Above all, I really can’t explain the crux of the plot. A venerable diarrhoea of exposition in a crypt, during an inexplicably quiet fifteen minutes (given ‘im-who-can-be-named is next door with about a thousand other people!) left me completely bewildered. A bizarre event at sea (no spoilers) would seem to make absolutely NO SENSE when considered with another reveal at the end of the film. I thought I must have clearly missed something… or I’d just not been intelligent enough to process the information…. or…. it was actually completely bonkers! Actually, I think it’s the latter: in desperation I went on a fan site that tried to explain the plot. While it was explained there, the explanation aligned with what I thought had happened: but it made no mention of the ridiculousness of the random coincidence involved!
The turns
The film’s a mess. Which is a shame since everyone involved tries really hard. Depp oozes evil very effectively (he proves that nicely on arriving in Paris, and doubles-down about 5 minutes later: #veryverydark). Redmayne replays his Newt-act effectively but once again (and I see I made the same comments in my “Fantastic Beasts” review) his character mumbles again so much that many of his lines are unintelligible.
I also complained last time that the excellent actress Katherine Waterston was criminally underused as the tentative love interest Tina. this trend unfortunately continues unabated in this film…. you’ll struggle afterwards to write down what she actually did in this film.
Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol, looking for all the world in some scenes like Rachel Weisz) reprise their roles in a sub-plot that goes nowhere in particular.
Of the newcomers, Jude Law as Dumbledore is a class-act but has very little screen time: hopefully he will get more to do next time around. Zoë Kravitz impresses as Leta.
Wizards of the screen
As you would expect from a David Yates / David Heyman Potter collaboration, the product design, costume design and special effects are all excellent. Some scenes are truly impressive – an ‘explosion’ in a Parisian garret is particularly spectacular.
But special effects alone do not a great film make. Many reviews I’ve seen complain that this was a ‘filler’ film… a set-up film for the rest of the series. And I can understand that view. If you analyse the film overall, virtually NOTHING of importance actually happens: it’s like the “Order of the Phoenix” of the prequels.
Final Thoughts
I dragged myself along to see this one because “I thought I should”. The third in the series will really need to sparkle to make me want to see it. If J.K. Rowling were to take me advice (she won’t – she NEVER returns my calls!) then she would sculpt the story-arc but leave the screenwriting to someone better. The blame for this one, I’m afraid, lies at Rowling’s door alone.
Fred (860 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jul 10, 2018
The acting is top notch (2 more)
Lots of action
Very loyal to the game series
The Story of Lara Croft is an interesting one
Watched this last night. As usual, I try not to see any reviews until I see it, so I'm not swayed by other's opinions. And so, not knowing if the movie was liked or disliked, I was able to watch it & make my own opinion.
I am a fan of the game series & love the new entries. I'm very glad they decided to follow the new games for this film & I found Lara's "origin" to be real interesting. I was not a fan of the Angelina Jolie movies. I found her too snooty & arrogant to like the character. But Alicia Vikander plays the characters perfectly. She plays a young Lara, who's tough, but has some vulnerability to her. She's an underdog we can root for, but she can hold her own too. A perfect balance.
Daniel Wu & Dominic West play their parts well. Although I would have liked to have seen Wu pull off some martial arts moves, like his character on "Into the Badlands", but I'm also glad they didn't fall for the stereotypical Asian.
But. a movie is only as good as it's main villain. And this movie has a great one. Played by Walton Goggins, who doesn't get the credit he deserves. This guy is great. He can make you love him & he can make you hate him too. I've never seen him in a bad role.
There's really not much to say about the story, as it's practically a live-action remake of the last 2 video games stories mashed together. You know what to expect, lots of action, lots of raiding of tombs. I kind of wish there would have been more puzzle solving in it. Some of the puzzles were solved without even showing them. Lara just solves them. I kind of wish I could have figured them out. But I guess I'm just used to playing the game & doing everything myself.
Anyway, the bottom line, it's a fun film, well worth watching.
I am a fan of the game series & love the new entries. I'm very glad they decided to follow the new games for this film & I found Lara's "origin" to be real interesting. I was not a fan of the Angelina Jolie movies. I found her too snooty & arrogant to like the character. But Alicia Vikander plays the characters perfectly. She plays a young Lara, who's tough, but has some vulnerability to her. She's an underdog we can root for, but she can hold her own too. A perfect balance.
Daniel Wu & Dominic West play their parts well. Although I would have liked to have seen Wu pull off some martial arts moves, like his character on "Into the Badlands", but I'm also glad they didn't fall for the stereotypical Asian.
But. a movie is only as good as it's main villain. And this movie has a great one. Played by Walton Goggins, who doesn't get the credit he deserves. This guy is great. He can make you love him & he can make you hate him too. I've never seen him in a bad role.
There's really not much to say about the story, as it's practically a live-action remake of the last 2 video games stories mashed together. You know what to expect, lots of action, lots of raiding of tombs. I kind of wish there would have been more puzzle solving in it. Some of the puzzles were solved without even showing them. Lara just solves them. I kind of wish I could have figured them out. But I guess I'm just used to playing the game & doing everything myself.
Anyway, the bottom line, it's a fun film, well worth watching.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Fifty Shades Freed in Books
Jan 15, 2020
Okay listen, this is my favorite book of all of them - including the Christian perspective novels and when I said on my other reviews that I would rage about this one not having a book written in his perspective, I didn't think I'd be this angry about it. There is so much juice in this novel - lots of thrill, the fighting (Ana FINALLY grows some cajones and stands up to Christian and that's the most satisfying character development), I NEED a Christian perspective!!! It would round out this series so nicely.
There is this whole section of the middle of the book involving Ray that just feels dumb and useless. It was like it was thrown in there because they needed more pages and I almost think that the production staff on the film agreed because that plotline doesn't happen in the film.
Again, I wish more than anything that there was a Christian perspective. After reading the other 2 books from his point of view and knowing what was happening in his head at certain points, I found myself really craving that with this novel. There's this one fight that happens and I so wanted to be inside his head to know what he was thinking!! Does anyone want to start a petition with me to get E.L. James to write it?
Anyways, I think that this is the best novel of all of them. I think that it's the climax of the story, anything more than these 3 novels and it would've just felt like too much. I don't have any desire to read any of the other books again but I could find myself wandering back to this one to read as a filler if I wasn't sure where I wanted to go next. Overall, there are definitely some holes in the story, some dead parts that could've just been cut entirely, and obviously I still have a major issue with the dialogue BUT it's still my favorite. It's a guilty pleasure. It's worth reading just to say you did.
I'm a little more sad to be done than I thought I would be but I suppose it's time to bid Christian Grey adieu. After watching the last movie, of course.
There is this whole section of the middle of the book involving Ray that just feels dumb and useless. It was like it was thrown in there because they needed more pages and I almost think that the production staff on the film agreed because that plotline doesn't happen in the film.
Again, I wish more than anything that there was a Christian perspective. After reading the other 2 books from his point of view and knowing what was happening in his head at certain points, I found myself really craving that with this novel. There's this one fight that happens and I so wanted to be inside his head to know what he was thinking!! Does anyone want to start a petition with me to get E.L. James to write it?
Anyways, I think that this is the best novel of all of them. I think that it's the climax of the story, anything more than these 3 novels and it would've just felt like too much. I don't have any desire to read any of the other books again but I could find myself wandering back to this one to read as a filler if I wasn't sure where I wanted to go next. Overall, there are definitely some holes in the story, some dead parts that could've just been cut entirely, and obviously I still have a major issue with the dialogue BUT it's still my favorite. It's a guilty pleasure. It's worth reading just to say you did.
I'm a little more sad to be done than I thought I would be but I suppose it's time to bid Christian Grey adieu. After watching the last movie, of course.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Mar 26, 2020
Let's be honest, Solo was getting un-earnt hate from the minute it was announced. "No one asked for this" was thrown around often. "It's not Harrison Ford" was another one, and as a result, it was met in release with a fair amount of vitriol, and underperformed at the box office (apparently, still made shit tons of money...)
This is a great shame in my opinion. Solo isn't a perfect film by any means but it's still a fun and enjoyable sci-fi adventure.
Seeming as the plot revolves mainly around Han Solo, who of course is a huge staple character in the original trilogy, set after this one, the stakes are relatively low, and this gives the film room to relax a present us with what is essentially a heist movie, just one thats set in the Star Wars universe.
Alden Ehrenreich is fine as the titular Solo. He isn't trying to just copy Harrison Ford, but still provides something that feels familiar, whilst giving his own take on the character.
Donald Glover is pitch perfect as a young Lando Calrissian, and is arguably the highlight cast member.
It's great to have the likes of Thandie Newton and Woody Harrelson involved as well.
As I've said in my GoT reviews, I've always struggled to full get on board with Emilia Clarke, and it's no different here. She's just kind of there, and I honestly feel that the film wouldn't have suffered to greatly without her character.
My main gripe with Solo is the constant need to over explain everything - ever wondered how Han got his blaster and jacket? No? Well tough shit because we're going to tell you! Ever wondered where he got those dice that hang in the Millennium Falcon for like two seconds in one of the films? No? Shut up and watch dammit. Ever wondered why Han's second name is Solo? No? Well fuck you, because you're about to find out (and it's horribly cringey) Ever wanted to see what the Kessel Run is that Han spoke about once in the history of Star Wars? Well, maybe, kind of, but surprise, ITS A BIG CGI SQUID HAHAHA.
Any mystery and intrigue that you may have about Han Solo is explained away in incessant detail to the point where it becomes quickly tiresome. Not everything needs a back story dammit.
Honestly though, Solo could have been soooo much worse, but as it happens, it actually decent. It's not perfect as I mentioned, but I would happily take it over episodes 8 and 9. If you're one is those fans who have just straight up refused to watch it for some reason, stop being a silly goose and give it a go.
This is a great shame in my opinion. Solo isn't a perfect film by any means but it's still a fun and enjoyable sci-fi adventure.
Seeming as the plot revolves mainly around Han Solo, who of course is a huge staple character in the original trilogy, set after this one, the stakes are relatively low, and this gives the film room to relax a present us with what is essentially a heist movie, just one thats set in the Star Wars universe.
Alden Ehrenreich is fine as the titular Solo. He isn't trying to just copy Harrison Ford, but still provides something that feels familiar, whilst giving his own take on the character.
Donald Glover is pitch perfect as a young Lando Calrissian, and is arguably the highlight cast member.
It's great to have the likes of Thandie Newton and Woody Harrelson involved as well.
As I've said in my GoT reviews, I've always struggled to full get on board with Emilia Clarke, and it's no different here. She's just kind of there, and I honestly feel that the film wouldn't have suffered to greatly without her character.
My main gripe with Solo is the constant need to over explain everything - ever wondered how Han got his blaster and jacket? No? Well tough shit because we're going to tell you! Ever wondered where he got those dice that hang in the Millennium Falcon for like two seconds in one of the films? No? Shut up and watch dammit. Ever wondered why Han's second name is Solo? No? Well fuck you, because you're about to find out (and it's horribly cringey) Ever wanted to see what the Kessel Run is that Han spoke about once in the history of Star Wars? Well, maybe, kind of, but surprise, ITS A BIG CGI SQUID HAHAHA.
Any mystery and intrigue that you may have about Han Solo is explained away in incessant detail to the point where it becomes quickly tiresome. Not everything needs a back story dammit.
Honestly though, Solo could have been soooo much worse, but as it happens, it actually decent. It's not perfect as I mentioned, but I would happily take it over episodes 8 and 9. If you're one is those fans who have just straight up refused to watch it for some reason, stop being a silly goose and give it a go.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Sep 24, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
When their mobster husbands are all sent to prison, three women decide that the only way they can survive is to take over their criminal enterprise’s, the quest is can their friendship last.
The Kitchen is based on comics released by DC Vertigo and is set in ‘Hell’s Kitchen’, New York during the 1970’s and focus’ on the lives of the wives of an Irish/American mob and their struggle to maintain a basic life style once their husbands have been arrested. Each of the women have a different type of relationship with their husbands; Kathy is in a seemingly normal, loving relationship, Claire is in an abusive relationship and Ruby is in a mixed marriage which is looked down on by alto for the other characters. One of the threads of the film is how each woman reacts to their husbands being away and what will happen when they return.
First off, this is not a comedy, I have seen some reviews where people seem to have been expecting a few laughs, mainly because of the casting of Melissa McCarthy and Tiffany Haddish. The Kitchen has violence, abuse, attempted rape, bad language, lots of guns, prostitutes and shootings but no humour. I think there was only one time anyone laughed (in the cinema audience) and that was when the characters were being shown how to dispose of a dead body.
I have to say that this is a good, well written female lead film, the premise is not forced and there is a reason the characters are female and in a situation that women would not normally be in, especially for the time it is set. Even though the characters are slightly stereotyped (The beaten woman trying to get stronger, the loving wife trying to keep things together) they are not turned into a joke or overly exaggerated and is a big step up from the Ghostbuster’s remake which also had McCarthy as part of an all-female team. Like Ghostbusters there is also a male character who helps the team, Gabriel, but the Kitchen avoids turning him into a joke unlike Chris Hemsworth in ghostbusters.
It could be said that the way the male characters are portrayed is bad, most of them are either thugs, stupid or crazy but this not due to any kind of feminism agenda but is a slightly stereotyped view of how a segment of people were seen, most of the people they deal with are the Irish/American mobsters. This is also shown by the Italians; they are not portrayed in the same way.
I do get the feeling that The Kitchen will be remembered more for scenes and its characters than for the overall movie as there are some bits that seem to drag but, overall it is a film worth watching.
The Kitchen is based on comics released by DC Vertigo and is set in ‘Hell’s Kitchen’, New York during the 1970’s and focus’ on the lives of the wives of an Irish/American mob and their struggle to maintain a basic life style once their husbands have been arrested. Each of the women have a different type of relationship with their husbands; Kathy is in a seemingly normal, loving relationship, Claire is in an abusive relationship and Ruby is in a mixed marriage which is looked down on by alto for the other characters. One of the threads of the film is how each woman reacts to their husbands being away and what will happen when they return.
First off, this is not a comedy, I have seen some reviews where people seem to have been expecting a few laughs, mainly because of the casting of Melissa McCarthy and Tiffany Haddish. The Kitchen has violence, abuse, attempted rape, bad language, lots of guns, prostitutes and shootings but no humour. I think there was only one time anyone laughed (in the cinema audience) and that was when the characters were being shown how to dispose of a dead body.
I have to say that this is a good, well written female lead film, the premise is not forced and there is a reason the characters are female and in a situation that women would not normally be in, especially for the time it is set. Even though the characters are slightly stereotyped (The beaten woman trying to get stronger, the loving wife trying to keep things together) they are not turned into a joke or overly exaggerated and is a big step up from the Ghostbuster’s remake which also had McCarthy as part of an all-female team. Like Ghostbusters there is also a male character who helps the team, Gabriel, but the Kitchen avoids turning him into a joke unlike Chris Hemsworth in ghostbusters.
It could be said that the way the male characters are portrayed is bad, most of them are either thugs, stupid or crazy but this not due to any kind of feminism agenda but is a slightly stereotyped view of how a segment of people were seen, most of the people they deal with are the Irish/American mobsters. This is also shown by the Italians; they are not portrayed in the same way.
I do get the feeling that The Kitchen will be remembered more for scenes and its characters than for the overall movie as there are some bits that seem to drag but, overall it is a film worth watching.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
14,000,605:1 …. or perhaps 50:50!
So, it’s been a week of full-on work and family commitments…. which means it’s also been a week of ducking and dodging of film reviews in case of spoilers! (Actually, all my favourite bloggers have been pretty good!). This review will also be spoiler free,but there is just SO MUCH that can be discussed there will be a Spoiley McSpoiler section after the trailer video.
Upfront I have to admit that I’m not the world’s greatest MCU fan, but even I felt a twinge of anticipation on going into this 19th instalment: a film that has had fan-boys frothing at the loins for years. And the film doesn’t disappoint, drawing together most (but not all) threads of the disparate MCU universe into a sprawling epic adventure.
Thanos (which inappropriately always seems to autocorrect to “Thanks”!) is played by a CGI’d Josh Brolin, first glimpsed as a “monkey” after the original “Avengers” movie where his quest for the “infinity stones” was first mooted. This particular McGuffin has been revealed in parts throughout the series, with others being surreptitiously slipped into this instalment. With all six stones, Thanos will be able to fully exercise his God fixation over the Universe. Will the Avengers and their new Guardian friends (“Who the hell are you guys?” LOL) be able to stop him?
There are shocks and surprises aplenty. Most of these come courtesy of Thanos who, although like all megalomaniac Bond villains is as mad as a box of frogs, has a backstory and a depth of character that is several cuts above most movie villains.
All of the cast seem to have great fun bouncing off each other. The only performance I found out of kilter was Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner who (to me) seemed to be really off his game and false, at least for the early scenes in the movie.
The special effects are – naturally – top-notch and are clever in trying to smooth the joins between the ‘traditional’ view of the Avengers world and the garish world of the Guardians of the Galaxy crew.
Cinema staff must hate a Marvel movie as they have to wait til the very end of the credits before they can move in to clean! And there is a “monkey” (and a good one) at the very end of the credits here, but the credits are very, very long!
So, in summary, it’s complete nonsense as normal, but it’s high-class nonsense, well-written, suitably humorous and provides excellent popcorn entertainment. Directors Anthony and Joe Russo are to be congratulated in pulling off what could have been a disaster. Recommended.
Upfront I have to admit that I’m not the world’s greatest MCU fan, but even I felt a twinge of anticipation on going into this 19th instalment: a film that has had fan-boys frothing at the loins for years. And the film doesn’t disappoint, drawing together most (but not all) threads of the disparate MCU universe into a sprawling epic adventure.
Thanos (which inappropriately always seems to autocorrect to “Thanks”!) is played by a CGI’d Josh Brolin, first glimpsed as a “monkey” after the original “Avengers” movie where his quest for the “infinity stones” was first mooted. This particular McGuffin has been revealed in parts throughout the series, with others being surreptitiously slipped into this instalment. With all six stones, Thanos will be able to fully exercise his God fixation over the Universe. Will the Avengers and their new Guardian friends (“Who the hell are you guys?” LOL) be able to stop him?
There are shocks and surprises aplenty. Most of these come courtesy of Thanos who, although like all megalomaniac Bond villains is as mad as a box of frogs, has a backstory and a depth of character that is several cuts above most movie villains.
All of the cast seem to have great fun bouncing off each other. The only performance I found out of kilter was Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner who (to me) seemed to be really off his game and false, at least for the early scenes in the movie.
The special effects are – naturally – top-notch and are clever in trying to smooth the joins between the ‘traditional’ view of the Avengers world and the garish world of the Guardians of the Galaxy crew.
Cinema staff must hate a Marvel movie as they have to wait til the very end of the credits before they can move in to clean! And there is a “monkey” (and a good one) at the very end of the credits here, but the credits are very, very long!
So, in summary, it’s complete nonsense as normal, but it’s high-class nonsense, well-written, suitably humorous and provides excellent popcorn entertainment. Directors Anthony and Joe Russo are to be congratulated in pulling off what could have been a disaster. Recommended.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 1408 (2007) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: With the story of a sceptic investigating paranormal events but then ends up stuck in these paranormal events he so very much doesn’t believe in, is a very clichéd story. This has most of this and adds in that he is a writer with a dark past involving loss you know where this is going. Mixing it all together we get the idea of redemption for the mistakes we may have done in life. One weak point of this film is that there are two endings that paint a very different picture of the events that happen in the film, I personally prefer the Director’s Cut as I find it has more answer than the Theatrical Cut. (8/10)
Actor Reviews
John Cusack: Mike Enslin after suffering a personal loss Mike travels around writing about so called haunted hotel and location, bringing out a string of top 10 books looking at his experiences or lack thereof. Mike gets a postcard and against all the advice of the hotel manager he enters the room 1408, were he really gets put to the test. Mike starts off being distant from people, be it fans or his general style of conversation, but soon after the events start happening he changes too quickly for what his character has been through. John does a good job with the role as most of the film is solely around him. (8/10)
cusack
Samuel L. Jackson: Gerald Olin the manager of the Dolphin hotel trying to protect Mike from entering the room with all kinds of bribes, he tells the full history of the room but unfortunately lets him stay in the room. Good supporting performance from Jackson rarely seen, he is the dominant persona you would expect to see. (8/10)
sam
Director Review: Mikael Hafstrom – Creates some very good scares and keeps you guessing on what is going on, add in what I think is the better ending you get a very good piece of direction. (8/10)
Horror: Has some solid scares and some you really don’t see coming along with some nicely built up ones. (9/10)
Mystery: You are constantly wondering what is going on, but a lot is explained at the end. (9/10)
Thriller: Keeps you at the edge of your seat just wait to know what happens next. (9/10)
Settings: The hotel room feels very ordinary but once things starting to happen it turns into a nightmare, working very well for the genre. (9/10)
Special Effects: Strong special effects used throughout. (9/10)
Suggestion: If you are a fan of horror you will enjoy this, if you are a fan of Stephen King you will enjoy this otherwise this one isn’t really for you. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: The vents scene.
Worst Part: The two different endings can confuse when talking about this film with others.
Scariest Scene: Vent scene.
Believability: I give this a one because there are people like Mike you investigate the paranormal, but what happens isn’t believable. (1/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $131,998,242
Budget: $25 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the terrifying story by Stephen King
Overall: Good Atmospheric Horror
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/06/28/1408-2007/
Actor Reviews
John Cusack: Mike Enslin after suffering a personal loss Mike travels around writing about so called haunted hotel and location, bringing out a string of top 10 books looking at his experiences or lack thereof. Mike gets a postcard and against all the advice of the hotel manager he enters the room 1408, were he really gets put to the test. Mike starts off being distant from people, be it fans or his general style of conversation, but soon after the events start happening he changes too quickly for what his character has been through. John does a good job with the role as most of the film is solely around him. (8/10)
cusack
Samuel L. Jackson: Gerald Olin the manager of the Dolphin hotel trying to protect Mike from entering the room with all kinds of bribes, he tells the full history of the room but unfortunately lets him stay in the room. Good supporting performance from Jackson rarely seen, he is the dominant persona you would expect to see. (8/10)
sam
Director Review: Mikael Hafstrom – Creates some very good scares and keeps you guessing on what is going on, add in what I think is the better ending you get a very good piece of direction. (8/10)
Horror: Has some solid scares and some you really don’t see coming along with some nicely built up ones. (9/10)
Mystery: You are constantly wondering what is going on, but a lot is explained at the end. (9/10)
Thriller: Keeps you at the edge of your seat just wait to know what happens next. (9/10)
Settings: The hotel room feels very ordinary but once things starting to happen it turns into a nightmare, working very well for the genre. (9/10)
Special Effects: Strong special effects used throughout. (9/10)
Suggestion: If you are a fan of horror you will enjoy this, if you are a fan of Stephen King you will enjoy this otherwise this one isn’t really for you. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: The vents scene.
Worst Part: The two different endings can confuse when talking about this film with others.
Scariest Scene: Vent scene.
Believability: I give this a one because there are people like Mike you investigate the paranormal, but what happens isn’t believable. (1/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $131,998,242
Budget: $25 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the terrifying story by Stephen King
Overall: Good Atmospheric Horror
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/06/28/1408-2007/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Guilt trip.
“Passengers” is not a film that you can really talk about in much depth without straying into spoiler territory, so I will break my normal tradition of my reviews being entirely “Spoiler Free” and add a further discussion (but below the Fad Rating, so you are safe ‘til there).
The backdrop for “Passengers” is the spaceship “Avalon”, on a 120 year trip taking Earth colonists to the new world of “Homestead 2”. Following an ‘incident’ the story finds two individuals – Jim Preston, played by Chris “Jurassic World” Pratt, and Jennifer “Joy” Lawrence – as the only passengers awake on the automated ship among 5000+ other slumbering souls. It rather goes without saying that with two attractive and bankable Hollywood stars and nothing else to do, the two ‘get it on’. With things on the ship going from bad to worse, the two must work as a team to try to save the ship, crew and fellow passengers from disaster.
As a fan of sci-fi, I’ll start with a positive that the Avalon is a gloriously rendered spacecraft, and many of the scenes of space walking present beautiful cinematography (by Rodrigo Prieto of “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Argo”). Many of the other special effects in the film – led by special effects supervisor Daniel Sudick, of the Marvel franchise – are spectacularly good, especially one which demonstrates why the lifeguards closed the pool on the International Space Station!
The overall premise of the film is also original and well-conceived, setting up the backdrop for some serious post-watch ethical debate (see spoiler section).
Where the wheels came off for me though is with the script by Jon Spaihts (“Prometheus”, “Doctor Strange”). Some of the dialogue is just appallingly trite, and some of the supposed capabilities of our hero, Preston, are laughable. For example, he possesses an uncanny ability as “an engineer” to open a cabinet of electronics, scan the circuits and say “Nope – that all looks fine”: the next time my washing machine controller packs in, he’s going to be on my speed-dial for sure! And (cue trite line – “every component on the ship has a spare”) Preston immediately finds the required part (curiously, it’s right next to the failing component and not in Bay 67 on cargo deck 327!) and knows how to plug and play it as required.
Chris Pratt; Jennifer Lawrence
Pratt and Lawrence, with Pratt about to debug my washing machine controller just by looking at it.
But, for me, there was one particularly dire point in the script where Spaihts obviously forgets which film he’s writing the scene for and ‘goes superhero’: oh, hang on, Preston doesn’t HAVE any superhero powers! For me, any goodwill the story had built up through to that point get vented into space.
The director is Morten Tyldum, whose “Headhunters” I really enjoyed but who is probably more famous for “The Imitation Game”. Not overawed by the production’s scale, he does a great job of getting good performances out of the rather wooden action hunk that is Chris Pratt and the reliable Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence who (apart from one dramatic and emotional scene) the script doesn’t really stretch. Michael Sheen is also a great watch as the witty and dry android bar-tender.
In summary, this was a nice premise with great special effects and gorgeous production design, but frustratingly let down with a weak screenplay. With a better script and another 10% of tweaking, this could have been a real sci-fi classic.
The backdrop for “Passengers” is the spaceship “Avalon”, on a 120 year trip taking Earth colonists to the new world of “Homestead 2”. Following an ‘incident’ the story finds two individuals – Jim Preston, played by Chris “Jurassic World” Pratt, and Jennifer “Joy” Lawrence – as the only passengers awake on the automated ship among 5000+ other slumbering souls. It rather goes without saying that with two attractive and bankable Hollywood stars and nothing else to do, the two ‘get it on’. With things on the ship going from bad to worse, the two must work as a team to try to save the ship, crew and fellow passengers from disaster.
As a fan of sci-fi, I’ll start with a positive that the Avalon is a gloriously rendered spacecraft, and many of the scenes of space walking present beautiful cinematography (by Rodrigo Prieto of “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Argo”). Many of the other special effects in the film – led by special effects supervisor Daniel Sudick, of the Marvel franchise – are spectacularly good, especially one which demonstrates why the lifeguards closed the pool on the International Space Station!
The overall premise of the film is also original and well-conceived, setting up the backdrop for some serious post-watch ethical debate (see spoiler section).
Where the wheels came off for me though is with the script by Jon Spaihts (“Prometheus”, “Doctor Strange”). Some of the dialogue is just appallingly trite, and some of the supposed capabilities of our hero, Preston, are laughable. For example, he possesses an uncanny ability as “an engineer” to open a cabinet of electronics, scan the circuits and say “Nope – that all looks fine”: the next time my washing machine controller packs in, he’s going to be on my speed-dial for sure! And (cue trite line – “every component on the ship has a spare”) Preston immediately finds the required part (curiously, it’s right next to the failing component and not in Bay 67 on cargo deck 327!) and knows how to plug and play it as required.
Chris Pratt; Jennifer Lawrence
Pratt and Lawrence, with Pratt about to debug my washing machine controller just by looking at it.
But, for me, there was one particularly dire point in the script where Spaihts obviously forgets which film he’s writing the scene for and ‘goes superhero’: oh, hang on, Preston doesn’t HAVE any superhero powers! For me, any goodwill the story had built up through to that point get vented into space.
The director is Morten Tyldum, whose “Headhunters” I really enjoyed but who is probably more famous for “The Imitation Game”. Not overawed by the production’s scale, he does a great job of getting good performances out of the rather wooden action hunk that is Chris Pratt and the reliable Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence who (apart from one dramatic and emotional scene) the script doesn’t really stretch. Michael Sheen is also a great watch as the witty and dry android bar-tender.
In summary, this was a nice premise with great special effects and gorgeous production design, but frustratingly let down with a weak screenplay. With a better script and another 10% of tweaking, this could have been a real sci-fi classic.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 13, 2020
Disney: "We're making a film of Artemis Fowl!"
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html