Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) in Movies
Jun 10, 2022
Time For This To Go Extinct
Like it was millions of years ago, the time of the dinosaurs is coming to a close. With JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION, we end the Jurassic World trilogy (after having the Jurassic Park trilogy) and it is high time we do so.
A retro-film (as I’ve been calling these nostalgia-flicks that bring back old actors/characters from previously beloved properties), JURARSSIC WORLD DOMINION is entertaining enough - but the creative brains behind this franchise is just running out of clever ways to put the same group of characters in danger of being eaten by a dinosaur.
Written by Emily Carmichael based on a story by Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow and Directed by Trevorrow (returning to helm this franchise after Directing the first Jurassic World flick, but not the 2nd), JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION follows our favorite bickering couple, Clare (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen (Chris Pratt) and their pseudo-pet Velociraptor, Blue as they, once again, go into the Jurassic World fighting a money-grubbing Corporate Billionaire who wants the genetic technology for his own, greedy purposes and not what might be for the good of all - the Earth, the Humans and the Dinosaurs. Along the way good ol’ Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Dr. Ian Malcolm (the always quirky Jeff Goldblum) are, somehow, shoe-horned into this story.
And that, ultimately, is the issue with Dominion, the script feels like an amalgam of characters that needed to be serviced and set-pieces that needed to be shown, but the overall story-line and character development (not that there is much here) is shoved to the side, so at the end the emotional connection to this film - and it’s characters - is negligible.
What little character interest there is here is based solely on the charisma of the actors and they are…good enough. Pratt, of course, is able to carry the center of this flick as Owen Grady - but he doesn’t seem to be occupying the center square with the twinkle in his eye that he had in the first Jurassic World film. Bryce Dallas Howard is plucky enough as Clare, but this actress has been gaining traction lately as a “go-to” Director (like her father, Ron Howard) and that is probably a better career trajectory for her. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are “game enough” in what they are asked to do, but they both look just a bit tired of running around in front of green screen dinosaurs. Only Jeff Goldblum shines as Ian Malcolm and that’s because Trevorrow, wisely, decides to let Goldblum be Goldblum - odd and quirky.
Of the other actors in this film, DeWanda Wise (FATHERHOOD) really shines as a pilot who helps out the gang. On the other hand, Dichen Lachman (SEVERENCE) is completely wasted as a “top-notch” henchman that is pretty inept. However, it was good to see Omar Sy (who was in the first JURASSIC WORLD movie and then became a star thanks to his work on the French TV show LUPINE - which is terrific, by the way) back in the fold as it was good to see Campbell Scott back up on the big screen as the villain of the piece - a role that he brings an interesting twist to but, ultimately, the role leads to nowhere.
And that’s the issue with this film, the characterizations lead to nowhere, for Trevorrow focuses most of his attention on the battle scenes and the scares - and while not all of them are exciting and unusual, I did find myself jumping in my seat on more than one occasion and there is one scene with Bryce Dallas Howard escaping a dino in a swamp that was pretty intense.
Go see JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION if you’ve seen the other 5 - you’ve already invested this much time, you might as well complete the series. But, this film really brings nothing new and is, ultimately, less than what one hopes for in this type of film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A retro-film (as I’ve been calling these nostalgia-flicks that bring back old actors/characters from previously beloved properties), JURARSSIC WORLD DOMINION is entertaining enough - but the creative brains behind this franchise is just running out of clever ways to put the same group of characters in danger of being eaten by a dinosaur.
Written by Emily Carmichael based on a story by Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow and Directed by Trevorrow (returning to helm this franchise after Directing the first Jurassic World flick, but not the 2nd), JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION follows our favorite bickering couple, Clare (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen (Chris Pratt) and their pseudo-pet Velociraptor, Blue as they, once again, go into the Jurassic World fighting a money-grubbing Corporate Billionaire who wants the genetic technology for his own, greedy purposes and not what might be for the good of all - the Earth, the Humans and the Dinosaurs. Along the way good ol’ Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Dr. Ian Malcolm (the always quirky Jeff Goldblum) are, somehow, shoe-horned into this story.
And that, ultimately, is the issue with Dominion, the script feels like an amalgam of characters that needed to be serviced and set-pieces that needed to be shown, but the overall story-line and character development (not that there is much here) is shoved to the side, so at the end the emotional connection to this film - and it’s characters - is negligible.
What little character interest there is here is based solely on the charisma of the actors and they are…good enough. Pratt, of course, is able to carry the center of this flick as Owen Grady - but he doesn’t seem to be occupying the center square with the twinkle in his eye that he had in the first Jurassic World film. Bryce Dallas Howard is plucky enough as Clare, but this actress has been gaining traction lately as a “go-to” Director (like her father, Ron Howard) and that is probably a better career trajectory for her. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are “game enough” in what they are asked to do, but they both look just a bit tired of running around in front of green screen dinosaurs. Only Jeff Goldblum shines as Ian Malcolm and that’s because Trevorrow, wisely, decides to let Goldblum be Goldblum - odd and quirky.
Of the other actors in this film, DeWanda Wise (FATHERHOOD) really shines as a pilot who helps out the gang. On the other hand, Dichen Lachman (SEVERENCE) is completely wasted as a “top-notch” henchman that is pretty inept. However, it was good to see Omar Sy (who was in the first JURASSIC WORLD movie and then became a star thanks to his work on the French TV show LUPINE - which is terrific, by the way) back in the fold as it was good to see Campbell Scott back up on the big screen as the villain of the piece - a role that he brings an interesting twist to but, ultimately, the role leads to nowhere.
And that’s the issue with this film, the characterizations lead to nowhere, for Trevorrow focuses most of his attention on the battle scenes and the scares - and while not all of them are exciting and unusual, I did find myself jumping in my seat on more than one occasion and there is one scene with Bryce Dallas Howard escaping a dino in a swamp that was pretty intense.
Go see JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION if you’ve seen the other 5 - you’ve already invested this much time, you might as well complete the series. But, this film really brings nothing new and is, ultimately, less than what one hopes for in this type of film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Nadya R (9 KP) rated The Nightingale in Books
Jul 2, 2018
I am speechless. I finished the book 15 minutes ago, but I am still staring in the wall and tears are falling down my cheeks. It’s been a while since I’ve been that touched by a book. This story and this two sisters turn upside down the idea of the women’s role in WWII.
Kristin Hanna leads us through the dangerous way of Isabelle Rossignol - The Nightingale why fly to the freedom. She is one of the most active person in the Resistance. Fully opposite to her is her sister Vianne. She is humble and mild tempered she doesn’t want to be a hero. Her only wish is to survive the war together with her family. The Rossignol sisters were abandoned by their father (veteran of WWI) after their mother dead. Soon Vianne met Antoine and has a family with him. While Isabelle’s rebellious temper doesn’t allow her to accept her father decision and escape from every boarding school, she was sent to, and continue to go back to her father and to fight for his love. Exactly this part of her character made her The Nightingale- a woman equal to the men.
"Women were integral to the Resistance. Why couldn't men see that?"
On the other side Vianne doesn’t want to take part in the war. She doesn’t rise her voice, doesn’t ask questions. She’s been comfortable to the Nazis. And that is her point- been quiet and invisible means that you will survive. But as much as you want to close your eyes for injustice there is a breaking point - all these brutalities and injustice make us leave our ‘comfortable’ lives in the name of hundreds of saved lives.
The rebellious in Isabelle takes her to the centre of the French Resistance. First- used as a courier, she prove herself and began an important member in no time. Exposing her life to danger, she leads a pilot after a pilot through the high peaks of Pyrenees to their freedom. Meanwhile Vianne is living with Nazi officer, when one day the war bent her. She initiated a mission to save the Jews children.
"Vianne started them off on a song and they picked it up instantly, singing loudly as they clapped and bounced and skipped. Did they even notice the bombed out buildings they passed? The smoking piles of ribble that had once been homes? Or was destruction the ordinary view of their childhoods, unremarkable, unnoticeable."
But the war left its mark on all these kids, forced them to grow up fast and even in very young age they have already seen all these misfortunes in the world.
"Really, Maman? How long must we pretend?" The sadness-and the anger-in those beautiful eyes was heartbreaking. Vianne apparently had hidden nothing from this child who'd lost her childhood to war."
The author doesn’t save anything. At the end of the book she takes us to the Ravensbrück - the concentration camp in Germany for women why took an action against the Nazis. It’s known as one of the most brutal of them all. The picture, the author shows us, are breathtaking. All these tortures, rapes all these things that they did to women... I kinda felt it son deep and personal. I am not really able to write about this.
And at the end let’s speak about the love in the book. Here you can find lots of love.
Love of country.
Mother love.
Sisters love.
Love in the wartime is strong but faded at the same time. Set on the background, love is there but she(love) realises that in this times there is no place for blind love stories. On other hand this love is even stronger.
Every stolen second.
Every kiss is unspoken ‘Goodbye'.
Every meeting may be the last one.
".. a broken heart hurts as badly in wartime as in peace. Say good-bye to your young man well."
When it comes to war we imagine all these men risking their lives in the name of their country. But this is the story about war but trough women’s view. A women’s war on the shadow. Taking a risk of being caught and executed they keep delivering the message between the Resistance members. They are the connection between all pieces of the puzzle.
"Men tell stories. Women get on with it. For us it was a shadow war. There were no parades for us when it was over, no medals or mentions in history books. We did what we had to during the war, and when it was over, we picked up the pieces and started our lives over."
Kristin Hanna leads us through the dangerous way of Isabelle Rossignol - The Nightingale why fly to the freedom. She is one of the most active person in the Resistance. Fully opposite to her is her sister Vianne. She is humble and mild tempered she doesn’t want to be a hero. Her only wish is to survive the war together with her family. The Rossignol sisters were abandoned by their father (veteran of WWI) after their mother dead. Soon Vianne met Antoine and has a family with him. While Isabelle’s rebellious temper doesn’t allow her to accept her father decision and escape from every boarding school, she was sent to, and continue to go back to her father and to fight for his love. Exactly this part of her character made her The Nightingale- a woman equal to the men.
"Women were integral to the Resistance. Why couldn't men see that?"
On the other side Vianne doesn’t want to take part in the war. She doesn’t rise her voice, doesn’t ask questions. She’s been comfortable to the Nazis. And that is her point- been quiet and invisible means that you will survive. But as much as you want to close your eyes for injustice there is a breaking point - all these brutalities and injustice make us leave our ‘comfortable’ lives in the name of hundreds of saved lives.
The rebellious in Isabelle takes her to the centre of the French Resistance. First- used as a courier, she prove herself and began an important member in no time. Exposing her life to danger, she leads a pilot after a pilot through the high peaks of Pyrenees to their freedom. Meanwhile Vianne is living with Nazi officer, when one day the war bent her. She initiated a mission to save the Jews children.
"Vianne started them off on a song and they picked it up instantly, singing loudly as they clapped and bounced and skipped. Did they even notice the bombed out buildings they passed? The smoking piles of ribble that had once been homes? Or was destruction the ordinary view of their childhoods, unremarkable, unnoticeable."
But the war left its mark on all these kids, forced them to grow up fast and even in very young age they have already seen all these misfortunes in the world.
"Really, Maman? How long must we pretend?" The sadness-and the anger-in those beautiful eyes was heartbreaking. Vianne apparently had hidden nothing from this child who'd lost her childhood to war."
The author doesn’t save anything. At the end of the book she takes us to the Ravensbrück - the concentration camp in Germany for women why took an action against the Nazis. It’s known as one of the most brutal of them all. The picture, the author shows us, are breathtaking. All these tortures, rapes all these things that they did to women... I kinda felt it son deep and personal. I am not really able to write about this.
And at the end let’s speak about the love in the book. Here you can find lots of love.
Love of country.
Mother love.
Sisters love.
Love in the wartime is strong but faded at the same time. Set on the background, love is there but she(love) realises that in this times there is no place for blind love stories. On other hand this love is even stronger.
Every stolen second.
Every kiss is unspoken ‘Goodbye'.
Every meeting may be the last one.
".. a broken heart hurts as badly in wartime as in peace. Say good-bye to your young man well."
When it comes to war we imagine all these men risking their lives in the name of their country. But this is the story about war but trough women’s view. A women’s war on the shadow. Taking a risk of being caught and executed they keep delivering the message between the Resistance members. They are the connection between all pieces of the puzzle.
"Men tell stories. Women get on with it. For us it was a shadow war. There were no parades for us when it was over, no medals or mentions in history books. We did what we had to during the war, and when it was over, we picked up the pieces and started our lives over."
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Da Vinci Code (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
No film since “The Last Temptation of Christ” has invoked as much controversy as The Da Vinci Code based on the book of the same name by Dan Brown. Prior to the film even being screened for the press, cries ran out to ban the film and its message that some find blasphemous. Fortunately calmer heads have prevailed and the film by Director Ron Howard has arrived in a wash of media frenzy not seen since Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.
If you are seeing a pattern forming, you would be correct as it seems that few topics can raise ire and wrath more than the topic of religion, especially if the film proposes a viewpoint that differs from the traditional beliefs that are given by the church, bible, and history.
In the film, a monk appears to murder an elderly man who with his last ounces of strength, manages to leave a cryptic riddle on his body. The bizarre nature of the crime prompts French police inspector Fache (Jean Reno) to travel to the Louvre to investigate the crime. A clue at the crime scene causes the police to summer Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) from a lecture hall where he is signing his latest book on symbols. Since the deceased was supposed to meet Langdon earlier in the day Langdon has fallen under suspicion for the crime.
As he attempts to decipher the message at the crime scene, Langdon encounters a police cryptologists named Sophie (Audrey Tautou), who informs Robert that he is in danger and soon the duo are fleeing from the police after deciphering some hidden clues at the crime scene.
Before either Robert or Audrey knows what is happening, they are being accused of multiple murders and on the run. As the clues begin to mount, the mystery takes an even stranger turn by the discovery of an artifact that when unlocked, should contain a map.
Seeking refuge and help, the duo arrive at the estate of Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian Mc Kellen), who proceeds to tell Robert and Sophie that the clues they have uncovered are part of a cover-up that segments of the church will stop at nothing to keep secret. The nature of this secret is such that should it become public knowledge, then they very foundations of history, faith, and the church could be shaken to their core.
As the mystery becomes clearer, the group are attacked by a Monk named Silas (Paul Bettany), who has been doing the violent work of someone know as The Teacher in an effort to discover the location of artifacts and those attempting to uncover the mystery.
What follows is a frantic race that travels from Paris to London in an effort to get to the bottom of the mystery and unravel the true nature of the mystery and the secret that people are willing to kill for in order to protect.
While some may find the mystery, the players, and their motivations confusing, the film does grab hold and moves along at a solid pace. Ron Howard once again shows his skill by directing a film that is different from his other works, yet rich in its visuals and complexity. The scenic locales of the film enhance the mystery (For those who have not read the book), as they attempt to decipher the clues along with the characters.
The work from the cast was solid as Hanks gives a very good if restrained performance in his portrayal. Mc Kellen is a very nice blend of elegance and old world charm that lifts up every scene in which he is in.
While there are those who will lambaste the film for the message it provides, I chose to look at it as a film that does what movies should, entertain and make you think. The film is not saying its assertions are hard and cold facts, what it is doing is providing a vehicle for debate.
In college I was told that through debate comes knowledge and growth for a society. This was common in ancient Greek and Roman society where issues of the day would be debated in open forums. It seems that we as a society have become too insistent to take things at face value and have forgotten that the very nature of the human experience is to question, grow, and seek our own answers. As such the film is a great example of how Hollywood at times gets it right and provides solid entertainment that will stimulate as well as entertain.
If you are seeing a pattern forming, you would be correct as it seems that few topics can raise ire and wrath more than the topic of religion, especially if the film proposes a viewpoint that differs from the traditional beliefs that are given by the church, bible, and history.
In the film, a monk appears to murder an elderly man who with his last ounces of strength, manages to leave a cryptic riddle on his body. The bizarre nature of the crime prompts French police inspector Fache (Jean Reno) to travel to the Louvre to investigate the crime. A clue at the crime scene causes the police to summer Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) from a lecture hall where he is signing his latest book on symbols. Since the deceased was supposed to meet Langdon earlier in the day Langdon has fallen under suspicion for the crime.
As he attempts to decipher the message at the crime scene, Langdon encounters a police cryptologists named Sophie (Audrey Tautou), who informs Robert that he is in danger and soon the duo are fleeing from the police after deciphering some hidden clues at the crime scene.
Before either Robert or Audrey knows what is happening, they are being accused of multiple murders and on the run. As the clues begin to mount, the mystery takes an even stranger turn by the discovery of an artifact that when unlocked, should contain a map.
Seeking refuge and help, the duo arrive at the estate of Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian Mc Kellen), who proceeds to tell Robert and Sophie that the clues they have uncovered are part of a cover-up that segments of the church will stop at nothing to keep secret. The nature of this secret is such that should it become public knowledge, then they very foundations of history, faith, and the church could be shaken to their core.
As the mystery becomes clearer, the group are attacked by a Monk named Silas (Paul Bettany), who has been doing the violent work of someone know as The Teacher in an effort to discover the location of artifacts and those attempting to uncover the mystery.
What follows is a frantic race that travels from Paris to London in an effort to get to the bottom of the mystery and unravel the true nature of the mystery and the secret that people are willing to kill for in order to protect.
While some may find the mystery, the players, and their motivations confusing, the film does grab hold and moves along at a solid pace. Ron Howard once again shows his skill by directing a film that is different from his other works, yet rich in its visuals and complexity. The scenic locales of the film enhance the mystery (For those who have not read the book), as they attempt to decipher the clues along with the characters.
The work from the cast was solid as Hanks gives a very good if restrained performance in his portrayal. Mc Kellen is a very nice blend of elegance and old world charm that lifts up every scene in which he is in.
While there are those who will lambaste the film for the message it provides, I chose to look at it as a film that does what movies should, entertain and make you think. The film is not saying its assertions are hard and cold facts, what it is doing is providing a vehicle for debate.
In college I was told that through debate comes knowledge and growth for a society. This was common in ancient Greek and Roman society where issues of the day would be debated in open forums. It seems that we as a society have become too insistent to take things at face value and have forgotten that the very nature of the human experience is to question, grow, and seek our own answers. As such the film is a great example of how Hollywood at times gets it right and provides solid entertainment that will stimulate as well as entertain.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Bad Boys II (2003) in Movies
Apr 2, 2020
Decent but Definitely the Worst of the Trilogy
Narcotics detectives Mike Lowrey (Will Smith) and Marcus Burnett (Martin Lawrence) are back getting into a heap of shit as they try and take down an ecstasy ring.
Acting: 9
You have to love the performances of Lawrence and Smith as they know how to carry a movie between the two of them. Their chemistry is amazing and they do a wonderful job of balancing each other out, particularly in this film were Smith is more of a shoot-first type while Lawrence’s role is about finding peace and zen. Joe Pantoliano makes a return as Captain Howard, making me crack up everytime he opens his mouth to yell at Lowrey and Burnett for screwing up yet again.
The one role I just couldn’t let sneak past was Jordi Molla playing Johnny Tapia. Terrible doesn’t even begin to describe his performance. It feels too cliche and way overdone, detracting from important scenes at times. Wasn’t a fan in the slightest.
Beginning: 7
While I did appreciate the action at the beginning of the movie, there was just too much going on for me to really settle in and get into it. It’s hard to really understand up from down in the first ten minutes which carries on as the movie progresses as well. Less can be more sometimes, but it feels like in this instance, director Michael Bay called for more of everything.
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
Bad Boys II has its moments cinematically. The mortuary scene and the scene in the abandoned house are two that really stand out for me. They were shot in such a way that they are hard to forget. From an overall standpoint, I am not a fan of the overdose of slowmo that Bay loves to do. It becomes tedious to the brain and drags the movie out longer than it needs to be. And this movie already has enough time constraints as it is.
Conflict: 10
Action abounds in this second installment from shootouts to car chases to explosions on top of explosions. If you are an action junky, this movie will not disappoint. As much as I rag on Bay (and, no he’s not my favorite director), he knows how to make a scene pop and make traditional action sets feel extremely original. Even as I’m typing this, I can’t forget the highway scene where the bad guys have hijacked a car-carrying truck and they start to release the cars as they speed down the highway. It’s absolute calamity.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Bay does his best to keep things fresh, but it’s hard to hide from the fact that this is all about action then dialogue then right back to action. It gets a bit repetitive at times, but I will also admit that it may have something to do with the fact that I’ve watched a shit ton of movies recently (what else is new?). When Cuba gets mentioned and you realize the movie is only two thirds of the way over when it should be finished, that’s when things really slowed down for me even more. You can absolutely cut thirty minutes from this movie and it would be phenomenal, possibly a classic.
Plot: 6
Decent enough story, but nothing that’s going to win an Oscar. I felt corners were cut in spots as there were times where I was trying to figure out, “Why the hell is this happening now?” I also didn’t appreciate some of the cheats, which is a term I use to refer to spots in the movie that conveniently happen for the sake of it being a good scene. Again, cut a half hour of this movie and I might be feeling differently overall.
Resolution: 4
The end was not only mad corny, but it didn’t feel like a real resolution. Not sure what they were going for here, but it didn’t work. The end didn’t really justify the length of what it took to get there.
Overall: 73
I know I know. You read through this review and it almost sounds like I hated Bad Boys II. Truth is, it wasn’t terrible. Would it be the first action movie I recommend? Absolutely not. On the flipside, I can definitely think of many that were worse. At the risk of losing all credibility (as if I had any to begin with), I actually enjoyed this movie more than I did The French Connection. Fight me.
Acting: 9
You have to love the performances of Lawrence and Smith as they know how to carry a movie between the two of them. Their chemistry is amazing and they do a wonderful job of balancing each other out, particularly in this film were Smith is more of a shoot-first type while Lawrence’s role is about finding peace and zen. Joe Pantoliano makes a return as Captain Howard, making me crack up everytime he opens his mouth to yell at Lowrey and Burnett for screwing up yet again.
The one role I just couldn’t let sneak past was Jordi Molla playing Johnny Tapia. Terrible doesn’t even begin to describe his performance. It feels too cliche and way overdone, detracting from important scenes at times. Wasn’t a fan in the slightest.
Beginning: 7
While I did appreciate the action at the beginning of the movie, there was just too much going on for me to really settle in and get into it. It’s hard to really understand up from down in the first ten minutes which carries on as the movie progresses as well. Less can be more sometimes, but it feels like in this instance, director Michael Bay called for more of everything.
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
Bad Boys II has its moments cinematically. The mortuary scene and the scene in the abandoned house are two that really stand out for me. They were shot in such a way that they are hard to forget. From an overall standpoint, I am not a fan of the overdose of slowmo that Bay loves to do. It becomes tedious to the brain and drags the movie out longer than it needs to be. And this movie already has enough time constraints as it is.
Conflict: 10
Action abounds in this second installment from shootouts to car chases to explosions on top of explosions. If you are an action junky, this movie will not disappoint. As much as I rag on Bay (and, no he’s not my favorite director), he knows how to make a scene pop and make traditional action sets feel extremely original. Even as I’m typing this, I can’t forget the highway scene where the bad guys have hijacked a car-carrying truck and they start to release the cars as they speed down the highway. It’s absolute calamity.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Bay does his best to keep things fresh, but it’s hard to hide from the fact that this is all about action then dialogue then right back to action. It gets a bit repetitive at times, but I will also admit that it may have something to do with the fact that I’ve watched a shit ton of movies recently (what else is new?). When Cuba gets mentioned and you realize the movie is only two thirds of the way over when it should be finished, that’s when things really slowed down for me even more. You can absolutely cut thirty minutes from this movie and it would be phenomenal, possibly a classic.
Plot: 6
Decent enough story, but nothing that’s going to win an Oscar. I felt corners were cut in spots as there were times where I was trying to figure out, “Why the hell is this happening now?” I also didn’t appreciate some of the cheats, which is a term I use to refer to spots in the movie that conveniently happen for the sake of it being a good scene. Again, cut a half hour of this movie and I might be feeling differently overall.
Resolution: 4
The end was not only mad corny, but it didn’t feel like a real resolution. Not sure what they were going for here, but it didn’t work. The end didn’t really justify the length of what it took to get there.
Overall: 73
I know I know. You read through this review and it almost sounds like I hated Bad Boys II. Truth is, it wasn’t terrible. Would it be the first action movie I recommend? Absolutely not. On the flipside, I can definitely think of many that were worse. At the risk of losing all credibility (as if I had any to begin with), I actually enjoyed this movie more than I did The French Connection. Fight me.
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Confessions of an Expat in Paris in Books
Sep 16, 2019
I’ve been a fan of Vicki Lesage for years. I’ve read both Confessions of a Paris Party Girl and Confessions of a Paris Potty Trainer. So I was thrilled when she contacted me for an honest review (click here to learn how to get me to review your book).
Paris Potty Girl details her first few years in Paris, from bar-hopping to getting her first apartment to meeting her husband and Paris Potty Trainer, of course, details pregnancies and getting used to parenthood.
Confessions of an Expat in Paris is an anthology of anecdotes spanning across both these eras in Vicki Lesage’s life. You’ll learn about the cheesy and downright weird pick-up lines she received from French guys as well as the time she might have eaten part of her friend’s thumb.
Yep, you read that last sentence right.
Each anecdote is paired with a drink recipe, many of which sound really good. I can’t wait to try the mulled gin recipe.
Mulled Gin
For when you need to recover from face mask fails
1 bottle of red wine
12 oz. gin
1 teaspoon honey
1 oz. orange juice
1 oz. lemon juice
1 cinnamon stick
Add all the ingredients to a pot
Stir and Simmer until honey is dissolved
Serve warm
I really enjoyed Expat in Paris. The stories are usually hilarious and sometimes just a little bit cringy in a good way. Others are sweet and make me smile, like when she was on her honeymoon with her husband.
With her first two books, I felt like there was more of an overall story instead of disjointed anecdotes. As much as I liked being able to enjoy a quick and witty snapshot of her life before I had to get back to my own, I think I preferred the more continuous storyline in Party Girl and Potty Trainer.
While some of the stories were without a doubt hilariously absurd, like her boss’s father asking about how her vaginal rejuvenation was coming along in front of her coworkers (what the everloving fuck), others were less climactic. Lesage included an entire chapter about how she’s an awkward dancer, except when she did the Dirty Dancing move with her brother on her wedding.
A perfect wedding dance move.
The dancing chapter felt more like a summary than a specific moment in her life, which made my eyes glaze over. And she only casually mentioned what could have been some good stories, like her drunkenly dancing on tabletops in public. I would have loved a complete chapter about one of those times, but they are only mentioned now and then.
Vicki Lesage often makes me laugh out loud when reading her books. Her chapter “10 Ways Living in Paris is Like Dental Work” will always make me smile. She talks about how both involve interesting flavors, a lot of paperwork, and a lot of money, and I’ll go “Oh shit, she’s right.”
Now and then, however, her jokes miss the mark. At one point she veered off-topic to stage an imaginary trial to defend herself against herself for eating so much Ben and Jerry’s ice cream and then, within the trial, she goes even more off-topic by talking about how France doesn’t have Phish Food flavor until I just wanted to skip the chapter.
As of this review, I still haven’t tried any of the drink recipes, but I trust a former hardcore drinker like Vicki Lesage to come up with some good drinks, although I don’t think I’ll ever try The Fluoride Treatment because, well, ew. Not the drink itself, but the name. Even though it’s relevant to the chapter, I’m weirdly squeamish.
However, most of these drinks are probably not for amateurs like me, who drink wine out of a box and can’t tell the difference between Stella Artois and Schlitz (I’m guessing. I’ve never actually had Schlitz. But Stella Artois tastes like every other beer to me).
With the exception of the mulled gin, most of the drink recipes require either a martini shaker or a blender. You can probably mostly pull off these recipes without either, though. Just don’t take a page out of Lesage’s book and use lite pancake syrup instead of honey.
I rate Confessions of an Expat in Paris 4 out of 5 stars. It’s a hilarious book that I recommend to anyone who wants a light-hearted memoir.
Paris Potty Girl details her first few years in Paris, from bar-hopping to getting her first apartment to meeting her husband and Paris Potty Trainer, of course, details pregnancies and getting used to parenthood.
Confessions of an Expat in Paris is an anthology of anecdotes spanning across both these eras in Vicki Lesage’s life. You’ll learn about the cheesy and downright weird pick-up lines she received from French guys as well as the time she might have eaten part of her friend’s thumb.
Yep, you read that last sentence right.
Each anecdote is paired with a drink recipe, many of which sound really good. I can’t wait to try the mulled gin recipe.
Mulled Gin
For when you need to recover from face mask fails
1 bottle of red wine
12 oz. gin
1 teaspoon honey
1 oz. orange juice
1 oz. lemon juice
1 cinnamon stick
Add all the ingredients to a pot
Stir and Simmer until honey is dissolved
Serve warm
I really enjoyed Expat in Paris. The stories are usually hilarious and sometimes just a little bit cringy in a good way. Others are sweet and make me smile, like when she was on her honeymoon with her husband.
With her first two books, I felt like there was more of an overall story instead of disjointed anecdotes. As much as I liked being able to enjoy a quick and witty snapshot of her life before I had to get back to my own, I think I preferred the more continuous storyline in Party Girl and Potty Trainer.
While some of the stories were without a doubt hilariously absurd, like her boss’s father asking about how her vaginal rejuvenation was coming along in front of her coworkers (what the everloving fuck), others were less climactic. Lesage included an entire chapter about how she’s an awkward dancer, except when she did the Dirty Dancing move with her brother on her wedding.
A perfect wedding dance move.
The dancing chapter felt more like a summary than a specific moment in her life, which made my eyes glaze over. And she only casually mentioned what could have been some good stories, like her drunkenly dancing on tabletops in public. I would have loved a complete chapter about one of those times, but they are only mentioned now and then.
Vicki Lesage often makes me laugh out loud when reading her books. Her chapter “10 Ways Living in Paris is Like Dental Work” will always make me smile. She talks about how both involve interesting flavors, a lot of paperwork, and a lot of money, and I’ll go “Oh shit, she’s right.”
Now and then, however, her jokes miss the mark. At one point she veered off-topic to stage an imaginary trial to defend herself against herself for eating so much Ben and Jerry’s ice cream and then, within the trial, she goes even more off-topic by talking about how France doesn’t have Phish Food flavor until I just wanted to skip the chapter.
As of this review, I still haven’t tried any of the drink recipes, but I trust a former hardcore drinker like Vicki Lesage to come up with some good drinks, although I don’t think I’ll ever try The Fluoride Treatment because, well, ew. Not the drink itself, but the name. Even though it’s relevant to the chapter, I’m weirdly squeamish.
However, most of these drinks are probably not for amateurs like me, who drink wine out of a box and can’t tell the difference between Stella Artois and Schlitz (I’m guessing. I’ve never actually had Schlitz. But Stella Artois tastes like every other beer to me).
With the exception of the mulled gin, most of the drink recipes require either a martini shaker or a blender. You can probably mostly pull off these recipes without either, though. Just don’t take a page out of Lesage’s book and use lite pancake syrup instead of honey.
I rate Confessions of an Expat in Paris 4 out of 5 stars. It’s a hilarious book that I recommend to anyone who wants a light-hearted memoir.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Pitch Perfect 3 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Aca-bysmal.
Mr Plot and Miss Tale were teenage sweethearts. They met at Storyville High School and inseparable, but were viciously cursed by a jealous school nurse, bitter from a recent split. Notwithstanding this setback, they realised that they were soul-mates, got engaged and were married in the following summer. Everyone wished them well, and spoke of the time when the sound of little Plots would ring out around their new house. Unfortunately, however hard they tried, no little Plot arrived. The ancient curse of the school nurse rang in their ears. They paid to see the most expensive doctors on Harley Street, but noone could help them. It turned out that not only was Mrs Plot infertile, but so was Mr Plot. It was hopeless, and because of an unfortunate conviction for marujiana possession in Mr Plot’s teenage years they couldn’t even adapt, sorry, adopt a little Plot from someone else. So they lived together with sadness and bitterness building up inside them. Would the curse ever be lifted? Would they work through their differences to find new purpose in life? Or would they part acromoniously with Mrs Plot joining a convent to sing mournful songs of grief and missed opportunities in the Swiss Alps? TO… BE…CONTINUED.
There. You were there, weren’t you? Living it. You want to know what happens next? Sure you do. You see, even I can come up with a story…. and I’m not a “professional Hollywood scriptwriter”.
Why then, I ask you. Why oh why oh why oh why oh why do the scriptwriters of Pitch Perfect 3 – Kay Cannon (the original PP screenwriter) and Mike White (“The Emoji Movie”) – think that this dreadfully lazy set of loosely connected scenes represent a viable basis for a movie? Is the view from the guys who green-lit this thing that the crowd that loved “Pitch Perfect” and the pretty dreadful sequel “Pitch Perfect 2” will pay their box office money regardless? Let’s advertise the hell out of it and cash in our chips before word of mouth gets out!?
In this ‘adventure’ the Bellas go on a US Forces overseas tour (though this is not really explained until they suddenly appear in Spain – what? how?). The really REALLY annoying commentators John (John Michael Higgins) and Gail (Elizabeth Banks, “Love and Mercy“) tag along, filming some lame half-arsed documentary about them until even the scriptwriters get fed up of that tedious plot-line and it quietly withers on the vine.
Fat Amy (is this still an acceptable nickname in 2017?) also runs into her nefarious father again after many years (John Lithgow, “Interstellar“, “Daddy’s Home 2“). Lithgow – sporting a wonderful Australian accent – is about the best thing in the film. The “plot” (sorry, I can barely bring myself to use that word) revolves around Daddy trying to get something of Amy’s that he needs, for reasons – given the yacht he sails – that makes no sense whatsoever. Will he succeed? Will the Bellas get selected to headline with DJ Khaled (who is apparently a thing, but I’ve never heard him on BBC Radio 2)? Does anyone really care?
As my wife pointed out, it’s a bit unfortunate that the only Bellas who are not stick-thin size zeroes are the obese and annoyingly loud one, the black lesbian one and two that nobody knows why they are there. The message to the target female teen audience is clear: if you want to be “in” you’d better diet… hard. Nice.
Looking for all the world like sticks of candy-cane. The size 0 Bellas.
What can I say that’s vaguely nice about this monstrosity?
Some of the acapella song and dance numbers are fun enough, particularly “Toxic” that opens the film;
The closing number by Anna Kendrick (“Table 19“) is quite appealing;
There are also about 5 funny lines that made me smile: not laugh… smile;
It’s also a relief that John and Gail, unlike in “Pitch Perfect 2“, only come out with one xenophobic/racist comment in the film (and that’s about the French, so that hardly counts 🙂 ).
And I’m out…
There will be no doubt die-hard teenage fans who will love this one too. But my wife was a great fan of the first film (as indeed was I); she tolerated the second one; but even she declared this to be “Aca-Awful”. It’s not as toxically dreadful as “Dirty Grandpa“… what could be? But, seriously, life is too short for this.
There. You were there, weren’t you? Living it. You want to know what happens next? Sure you do. You see, even I can come up with a story…. and I’m not a “professional Hollywood scriptwriter”.
Why then, I ask you. Why oh why oh why oh why oh why do the scriptwriters of Pitch Perfect 3 – Kay Cannon (the original PP screenwriter) and Mike White (“The Emoji Movie”) – think that this dreadfully lazy set of loosely connected scenes represent a viable basis for a movie? Is the view from the guys who green-lit this thing that the crowd that loved “Pitch Perfect” and the pretty dreadful sequel “Pitch Perfect 2” will pay their box office money regardless? Let’s advertise the hell out of it and cash in our chips before word of mouth gets out!?
In this ‘adventure’ the Bellas go on a US Forces overseas tour (though this is not really explained until they suddenly appear in Spain – what? how?). The really REALLY annoying commentators John (John Michael Higgins) and Gail (Elizabeth Banks, “Love and Mercy“) tag along, filming some lame half-arsed documentary about them until even the scriptwriters get fed up of that tedious plot-line and it quietly withers on the vine.
Fat Amy (is this still an acceptable nickname in 2017?) also runs into her nefarious father again after many years (John Lithgow, “Interstellar“, “Daddy’s Home 2“). Lithgow – sporting a wonderful Australian accent – is about the best thing in the film. The “plot” (sorry, I can barely bring myself to use that word) revolves around Daddy trying to get something of Amy’s that he needs, for reasons – given the yacht he sails – that makes no sense whatsoever. Will he succeed? Will the Bellas get selected to headline with DJ Khaled (who is apparently a thing, but I’ve never heard him on BBC Radio 2)? Does anyone really care?
As my wife pointed out, it’s a bit unfortunate that the only Bellas who are not stick-thin size zeroes are the obese and annoyingly loud one, the black lesbian one and two that nobody knows why they are there. The message to the target female teen audience is clear: if you want to be “in” you’d better diet… hard. Nice.
Looking for all the world like sticks of candy-cane. The size 0 Bellas.
What can I say that’s vaguely nice about this monstrosity?
Some of the acapella song and dance numbers are fun enough, particularly “Toxic” that opens the film;
The closing number by Anna Kendrick (“Table 19“) is quite appealing;
There are also about 5 funny lines that made me smile: not laugh… smile;
It’s also a relief that John and Gail, unlike in “Pitch Perfect 2“, only come out with one xenophobic/racist comment in the film (and that’s about the French, so that hardly counts 🙂 ).
And I’m out…
There will be no doubt die-hard teenage fans who will love this one too. But my wife was a great fan of the first film (as indeed was I); she tolerated the second one; but even she declared this to be “Aca-Awful”. It’s not as toxically dreadful as “Dirty Grandpa“… what could be? But, seriously, life is too short for this.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alone in Berlin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Small Rebellions.
Once again, World War II turns up another true story of quiet valour to turn into a motion picture. At a time when Trump is pontificating about so called “fake news”, here is a timely tale from history which centres on the battle against genuinely fake news: the Nazi propaganda machine.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Moonfall (2022) in Movies
Feb 5, 2022
Terribly written. (2 more)
Overacted.
Halle Berry.
Moonfall Review: It’s Raining Moon
Moonfall is a $146 million sci-fi disaster film directed by Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, Godzilla) and written by Emmerich, Harald Kloser (2012, 10000 BC), and Spenser Cohen (Extinction, The Expendables 4).
On January 12, 2011, during what is referred to as routine outer space maintenance (it’s a thing), an unidentified technological swarm caused significant damage to the astronaut’s shuttle; killing one of them and incapacitating the surviving two crew members. Brian Harper (Patrick Wilson) maneuvers the shuttle back to earth with no power while his navigator Jocinda Fowl (Halle Berry) is unconscious. Brian takes the fall as he’s labeled incompetent despite previously being an acclaimed hero and he loses his job with NASA.
Ten years later, the moon suddenly begins changing course as a hole 26-kilometers deep is discovered in the center of it. People on earth have three weeks before the moon begins falling to earth in city-sized pieces. While NASA scrambles to discover a solution, an orbital megastructure aficionado and conspiracy blogger named K.C. Houseman (John Bradley) knew about the moon’s shift in course before NASA and may end up being the savior of mankind.
The opening scene of Moonfall lets its audience know that they’re in for an excruciating two hours. Patrick Wilson and Halle Berry argue over the lyrics to Toto’s “Africa” as Wilson musically screeches the 80s rock ballad to annoying results. The film does a few things right like earth’s gravity being a complete dumpster fire and the ocean literally being at foot of everyone’s door like Bo Burnham talked about in Inside. But then introduces the aspect of orbital megastructure in an attempt to not adhere to believable physics while lethargically committing to it.
Flooding, earthquakes, and birds falling to the ground due to gravity alterations are the culmination of the insanity in Moonfall. The moon coming closer to earth also apparently means humans can lift trees above their head and jump over gaps left by fallen bridges with little effort. There’s an awkward car chase between some redneck looters and the main characters of the film.
It’s awkward due to the fact that it’s really funky visual effects (literally everything taking place on the road and in the background) with green screen (the actors driving the cars), but it’s difficult to distinguish what’s what in a bad way. The CGI and special effects in the film are that peculiar blend of not necessarily being bad, but are just off-putting enough to look weird in some capacity. It’s a high speed chase involving a gravity wave, which is mostly just cars and debris floating in the air as the sky turns red. Coincidentally enough, the disaster effects are the best part of the film because they do what they’re supposed to do without overstaying their welcome.
The dialogue in the film is atrocious and Halle Berry is a filter for most of the bad lines. Some of her gems include, “I don’t work for you, I work for the American people and I don’t like keeping them in the dark,” “I am…(the longest pause ever between one word and another)…thinking about our son,” and something overwhelmingly corny about earth’s hourglass and our time running out. Donald Sutherland can barely stomach a brief cameo appearance shared with Berry’s character before excusing himself to the loaded gun he left back in his room (yes, this actually happens).
The evacuation route in Moonfall seems to involve fleeing to Colorado. What is in Colorado and why that’s important is never really explained other than because everyone else is there. Jocinda Fowl becomes the lead director of NASA during the film and her ex-husband (played by Eme Ikwuakor) works for the military. Ikwuakor does nothing but squint like French Stewart the entire time. NASA wants to survey the activity of what’s transpiring on the moon, fly inside of its new fancy made hole, and come up with a plan to save earth in the process. The military just wants to blow up the moon with nukes; screw the consequences, this is America!
With Moonfall, Roland Emmerich has essentially made an even dumber version of Michael Bay’s Armageddon. There’s not a lot to enjoy here apart from KC Houseman’s house cat being named Fuzz Aldrin. With its idiotic premise, hammy dialogue involving some of the most exaggerated emotional speeches ever, stiff acting, unfunny humor, and purposely distorted CGI, Moonfall features an overwhelming amount of frenetic nonsense and has no excuse to be as boring as it is.
On January 12, 2011, during what is referred to as routine outer space maintenance (it’s a thing), an unidentified technological swarm caused significant damage to the astronaut’s shuttle; killing one of them and incapacitating the surviving two crew members. Brian Harper (Patrick Wilson) maneuvers the shuttle back to earth with no power while his navigator Jocinda Fowl (Halle Berry) is unconscious. Brian takes the fall as he’s labeled incompetent despite previously being an acclaimed hero and he loses his job with NASA.
Ten years later, the moon suddenly begins changing course as a hole 26-kilometers deep is discovered in the center of it. People on earth have three weeks before the moon begins falling to earth in city-sized pieces. While NASA scrambles to discover a solution, an orbital megastructure aficionado and conspiracy blogger named K.C. Houseman (John Bradley) knew about the moon’s shift in course before NASA and may end up being the savior of mankind.
The opening scene of Moonfall lets its audience know that they’re in for an excruciating two hours. Patrick Wilson and Halle Berry argue over the lyrics to Toto’s “Africa” as Wilson musically screeches the 80s rock ballad to annoying results. The film does a few things right like earth’s gravity being a complete dumpster fire and the ocean literally being at foot of everyone’s door like Bo Burnham talked about in Inside. But then introduces the aspect of orbital megastructure in an attempt to not adhere to believable physics while lethargically committing to it.
Flooding, earthquakes, and birds falling to the ground due to gravity alterations are the culmination of the insanity in Moonfall. The moon coming closer to earth also apparently means humans can lift trees above their head and jump over gaps left by fallen bridges with little effort. There’s an awkward car chase between some redneck looters and the main characters of the film.
It’s awkward due to the fact that it’s really funky visual effects (literally everything taking place on the road and in the background) with green screen (the actors driving the cars), but it’s difficult to distinguish what’s what in a bad way. The CGI and special effects in the film are that peculiar blend of not necessarily being bad, but are just off-putting enough to look weird in some capacity. It’s a high speed chase involving a gravity wave, which is mostly just cars and debris floating in the air as the sky turns red. Coincidentally enough, the disaster effects are the best part of the film because they do what they’re supposed to do without overstaying their welcome.
The dialogue in the film is atrocious and Halle Berry is a filter for most of the bad lines. Some of her gems include, “I don’t work for you, I work for the American people and I don’t like keeping them in the dark,” “I am…(the longest pause ever between one word and another)…thinking about our son,” and something overwhelmingly corny about earth’s hourglass and our time running out. Donald Sutherland can barely stomach a brief cameo appearance shared with Berry’s character before excusing himself to the loaded gun he left back in his room (yes, this actually happens).
The evacuation route in Moonfall seems to involve fleeing to Colorado. What is in Colorado and why that’s important is never really explained other than because everyone else is there. Jocinda Fowl becomes the lead director of NASA during the film and her ex-husband (played by Eme Ikwuakor) works for the military. Ikwuakor does nothing but squint like French Stewart the entire time. NASA wants to survey the activity of what’s transpiring on the moon, fly inside of its new fancy made hole, and come up with a plan to save earth in the process. The military just wants to blow up the moon with nukes; screw the consequences, this is America!
With Moonfall, Roland Emmerich has essentially made an even dumber version of Michael Bay’s Armageddon. There’s not a lot to enjoy here apart from KC Houseman’s house cat being named Fuzz Aldrin. With its idiotic premise, hammy dialogue involving some of the most exaggerated emotional speeches ever, stiff acting, unfunny humor, and purposely distorted CGI, Moonfall features an overwhelming amount of frenetic nonsense and has no excuse to be as boring as it is.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Tim Burton and the flying elephant
If you had told me 15 years ago that Tim Burton would be directing a live-action adaptation of Disney’s classic, Dumbo I would’ve been overwhelmed with excitement. The director, famed for his unique sense of gothic style and visual flair has directed some of the best films ever made.
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/