Search
Search results
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Six bestselling authors have taken on the task of writing modern retellings of the complete works of Jane Austen. Alexander McCall Smith has successfully taken on the challenge of bringing <i>Emma</i> into the 21st century. Although the settings and characters remain the same the contemporary clothing, vehicles and ideas are something that the reader can relate to.
As fans of Jane Austen will already know, <i>Emma</i> is about rich, single Emma Woodhouse who, despite the disapproval of her good friend George Knightley, enjoys interfering in the lives of others, particularly where romance is concerned. Her meddling backfires when her plan to match her friend Harriet Smith with the boring Philip Elton has disastrous consequences.
Alexander McCall Smith’s version of <i>Emma</i> has more focus on the life of Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father, than the original did. He gives an account of Henry Woodhouse’s history and over emphasizes his anxieties about health and safety. Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns are constantly cropping up throughout the novel adding a little humour to the story.
One concern about this modern adaptation is that the writing style was overly formal. If it were not for the references to the current clothing fashions, motorcars and women attending university, the book could have been set during Jane Austen’s lifetime. Take, for example, the character Anne Taylor. Mr. Woodhouse hires Miss Taylor as a governess for his motherless daughters. Miss Taylor’s approach to the girls and her prim and proper use of language made her seem antiquated. She would not have looked out of place amongst other well-known governesses or nannies such as <i>Mary Poppins</i> or <i>Nurse Matilda</i>.
Occasionally it felt that Alexander McCall Smith was mocking the modern world, for example the activities of the younger generation or the way people speak. Whilst this may appeal to older readers who may disapprove of the recent developments and changes in the Western world; it alienates the teenagers and young adults who have grown up with modern technology.
There is no doubt that Alexander McCall Smith has done an excellent job at retelling such a famous novel, however to be a complete modern retelling I think everything needs to be brought into the 21st century. This would include all the characters and the style of language it is written in.
Six bestselling authors have taken on the task of writing modern retellings of the complete works of Jane Austen. Alexander McCall Smith has successfully taken on the challenge of bringing <i>Emma</i> into the 21st century. Although the settings and characters remain the same the contemporary clothing, vehicles and ideas are something that the reader can relate to.
As fans of Jane Austen will already know, <i>Emma</i> is about rich, single Emma Woodhouse who, despite the disapproval of her good friend George Knightley, enjoys interfering in the lives of others, particularly where romance is concerned. Her meddling backfires when her plan to match her friend Harriet Smith with the boring Philip Elton has disastrous consequences.
Alexander McCall Smith’s version of <i>Emma</i> has more focus on the life of Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father, than the original did. He gives an account of Henry Woodhouse’s history and over emphasizes his anxieties about health and safety. Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns are constantly cropping up throughout the novel adding a little humour to the story.
One concern about this modern adaptation is that the writing style was overly formal. If it were not for the references to the current clothing fashions, motorcars and women attending university, the book could have been set during Jane Austen’s lifetime. Take, for example, the character Anne Taylor. Mr. Woodhouse hires Miss Taylor as a governess for his motherless daughters. Miss Taylor’s approach to the girls and her prim and proper use of language made her seem antiquated. She would not have looked out of place amongst other well-known governesses or nannies such as <i>Mary Poppins</i> or <i>Nurse Matilda</i>.
Occasionally it felt that Alexander McCall Smith was mocking the modern world, for example the activities of the younger generation or the way people speak. Whilst this may appeal to older readers who may disapprove of the recent developments and changes in the Western world; it alienates the teenagers and young adults who have grown up with modern technology.
There is no doubt that Alexander McCall Smith has done an excellent job at retelling such a famous novel, however to be a complete modern retelling I think everything needs to be brought into the 21st century. This would include all the characters and the style of language it is written in.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Dane Cook: Vicious Circle (2006) in Movies
Dec 5, 2020 (Updated Dec 6, 2020)
DANEgerous Edition
Less a stand-up show and more an event where you get to watch a manic cokehead scream at the top of his lungs and convulse around a small circular stage in front of a packed, sports-arena-esque crowd for nearly 2 hours and 15 minutes - one of the most breathless and impossible-to-look-away-from things I've ever seen. Say what you will about him, but he'll die before he loses your attention - it felt like *I* burned calories after watching him writhe, sweat, and shriek about for this long. Before Chappelle's similarly hit-or-miss 𝘚𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘴 & 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, this was arguably the most divisive stand-up special out there - most people either swore by it as one of the greats, or lambasted it as a stain on the legacy of comedy itself. It's hard to remember, but there was a time Cook was a megastar - the same year this special aired he was listed in TIME Magazine's "Top 100 Most Influential People In the World" alongside industry titans Meryl Streep and George Clooney. Outside of maybe Bam Margera I don't think any other sole entertainer represented the crass ode to reckless debauchery that was the mid-2000s quite like this guy; it's beguilingly bizarre almost solely as a piece of a pop culture time capsule alone. Though on its own merits this shockingly holds up a lot more than expected, not always funny (does some cringe 2006 shit like having two women make out on stage while Dane watches for no reason and a rather uncomfortable segment where he seemingly makes a young lady flash her breasts onstage) but home to a satiable amount of hearty chuckles and an exuberant energy that can't be denied even well past the two hour mark. Laden with dead-on observations, colossal vulgarity, intense (and super idiosyncratic) physicality, oddly cerebral camerawork + editing, and guttural cries unlike any other set I've seen... then after all that he comes back on the stage with an acoustic guitar to fucking *sing* - this is the human body being put to its endurance test as a comedic performer. A great time even if some of the jokes get drawn out way past the point of repair - what I can only describe as unforgettable, often really fucking funny, spastically aroused hyperspecificity. Nearly top-to-bottom infectious in spite of its whiffs.
Less a stand-up show and more an event where you get to watch a manic cokehead scream at the top of his lungs and convulse around a small circular stage in front of a packed, sports-arena-esque crowd for nearly 2 hours and 15 minutes - one of the most breathless and impossible-to-look-away-from things I've ever seen. Say what you will about him, but he'll die before he loses your attention - it felt like *I* burned calories after watching him writhe, sweat, and shriek about for this long. Before Chappelle's similarly hit-or-miss 𝘚𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘴 & 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, this was arguably the most divisive stand-up special out there - most people either swore by it as one of the greats, or lambasted it as a stain on the legacy of comedy itself. It's hard to remember, but there was a time Cook was a megastar - the same year this special aired he was listed in TIME Magazine's "Top 100 Most Influential People In the World" alongside industry titans Meryl Streep and George Clooney. Outside of maybe Bam Margera I don't think any other sole entertainer represented the crass ode to reckless debauchery that was the mid-2000s quite like this guy; it's beguilingly bizarre almost solely as a piece of a pop culture time capsule alone. Though on its own merits this shockingly holds up a lot more than expected, not always funny (does some cringe 2006 shit like having two women make out on stage while Dane watches for no reason and a rather uncomfortable segment where he seemingly makes a young lady flash her breasts onstage) but home to a satiable amount of hearty chuckles and an exuberant energy that can't be denied even well past the two hour mark. Laden with dead-on observations, colossal vulgarity, intense (and super idiosyncratic) physicality, oddly cerebral camerawork + editing, and guttural cries unlike any other set I've seen... then after all that he comes back on the stage with an acoustic guitar to fucking *sing* - this is the human body being put to its endurance test as a comedic performer. A great time even if some of the jokes get drawn out way past the point of repair - what I can only describe as unforgettable, often really fucking funny, spastically aroused hyperspecificity. Nearly top-to-bottom infectious in spite of its whiffs.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Mongolian Death Worm (2010) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Daniel is a treasure hunter searching for the burial grounds of Genghis Khan but has made his own enemies in the land but also knows how to handle himself, he isn’t the kindest of people always doing things for money over the right reasons, Alicia is a doctor that has been helping the locals of Mongolia with a virus outbreak and she is willing to die to save these people. Timur is the sheriff that is one of the few people that enjoys the company of Daniel and understands that he is harmless at heart.
Performance – Sean Patrick Flanery does seem to have fallen from the graces where he was about to make it to the big time but he is the star of this show. Victoria Pratt is fine in the supporting role with the brains and beauty needed for the film and George Cheung gives us the laughs when needed.
Story – The story does mix myth with legend when it comes to dealing with new inhabitants to a land that must face the idea that a myth isn’t just a myth and must work together to defeat a creature in this case a Mongolian Death Worm. This is an easy to watch story as it is mostly a group of people needing to battle an unknown enemy before they take over the local area.
Action/Horror – The action is mostly chases through the film which works when it comes to the enemies the people are facing with the horror side of the movie all coming from the creature feature idea which is always a lot of fun to watch.
Settings – The film is set in Mongolia but this looks like it could be anywhere in the USA or anywhere that has dirt roads.
Special Effects – The effects are better than I was expecting but still within the budget of a TV movie.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The film could have been filmed in any location it wouldn’t have made a difference.
Final Thoughts – This is a simple creature feature that is a lot better than what I was expecting without being one of the best creature features you will see, I do think the fact it isn’t laughably bad does hinder it though.
Overall: Solid creature feature.
Performance – Sean Patrick Flanery does seem to have fallen from the graces where he was about to make it to the big time but he is the star of this show. Victoria Pratt is fine in the supporting role with the brains and beauty needed for the film and George Cheung gives us the laughs when needed.
Story – The story does mix myth with legend when it comes to dealing with new inhabitants to a land that must face the idea that a myth isn’t just a myth and must work together to defeat a creature in this case a Mongolian Death Worm. This is an easy to watch story as it is mostly a group of people needing to battle an unknown enemy before they take over the local area.
Action/Horror – The action is mostly chases through the film which works when it comes to the enemies the people are facing with the horror side of the movie all coming from the creature feature idea which is always a lot of fun to watch.
Settings – The film is set in Mongolia but this looks like it could be anywhere in the USA or anywhere that has dirt roads.
Special Effects – The effects are better than I was expecting but still within the budget of a TV movie.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The film could have been filmed in any location it wouldn’t have made a difference.
Final Thoughts – This is a simple creature feature that is a lot better than what I was expecting without being one of the best creature features you will see, I do think the fact it isn’t laughably bad does hinder it though.
Overall: Solid creature feature.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019
With Tomorrowland's lifeless fantasy world, bland characters, second-rate special effects, forced dialogue, and uninspired story, your future will undoubtedly be better off if it doesn't involve watching this movie.
Disney’s Tomorrowland implores us to imagine a world without limitation. One where nothing is impossible, and all of our wildest dreams can come true. (Sounds very trademark Disney, doesn’t it?) In the movie, that world exists in the form of a secret utopian society that has been built by only the brightest of minds. It is a place that exists free of politics and corruption, where people can push the boundaries of possibility as far as their imaginations will take them. Tomorrowland is a world meant to inspire, to evoke wonder, and to nurture creativity. It’s a stunning shame then, that all I ever felt while watching the movie was sheer boredom. For all of its endless opportunity, Tomorrowland ends up being almost completely uninteresting. With Tomorrowland‘s lifeless fantasy world, bland characters, second-rate special effects, forced dialogue, and uninspired story, your own future will undoubtedly be better off if it doesn’t involve ever watching this movie.
With the star talent of George Clooney, the directorial skill of Brad Bird, and the film’s promising trailers, I must admit that I was caught off guard by Tomorrowland‘s lackluster execution. The greatest compliment I can give the film is that it’s blandly passable, but in no area is it particularly good, engaging, or thought-provoking. For being a film that is about celebrating creativity, it sure is lacking in that regard. Tomorrowland itself feels like a poorly-realized pipe dream. It’s supposed to be this wonderfully ingenious world of innovation, but nothing about it struck me as notably exciting or exceptional. From the surface, it looks like your typical futuristic metropolis, complete with jetpacks and flying cars. Beyond that, I couldn’t really tell you what makes Tomorrowland so special, and I believe that’s largely because we’re given so little access to it. The movie treats us as outsiders to this place, and we spend the majority of the film tagging alongside the two main characters as they try to get in, but we’re never given any sort of rewarding payoff once we get there. The world of Tomorrowland is practically nothing more than a shallow, fantasy world facade.
The movie starts off with an uncomfortably awkward recruitment video recorded by Tomorrowland’s two main characters, Frank Walker (George Clooney) and Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), in which they argue over how they should tell their story. It’s a poor attempt at humor with banter that feels entirely forced. If anything, this overly long introduction should have served as an early indicator that I was about to embark on a two-hour snooze-fest. From there we transition to each of their character’s respective origin stories, and their separate journeys that led them to Tomorrowland.
Frank’s story takes us to the 1964 World’s Fair at Disneyland where as a young boy he’s trying to enter with his faulty jetpack creation. His invention is rejected, but he still manages to catch the attention of a girl named Athena, who gives him a special pin with the Tomorrowland logo. Young Frank is ordered to secretly follow her in the theme park, leading to the “It’s A Small World” ride, where he’s magically transported to Tomorrowland. Here we’re given our first glimpse of this futuristic world, but the entire sequence isn’t nearly as fun or awe-inspiring as it should be. Frank takes to the skies in his newly-repaired jetpack and yet this significant moment somehow winds up feeling surprisingly empty. The movie fails to capture that youthful element of whimsy and excitement that comes from discovery.
Next we learn the much more recent story of Casey, an enthusiastic high school student with a passion for making the world a better place. She’s the daughter of a struggling inventor who gets herself in trouble with the law after trying to sabotage the government’s planned demolition of a NASA launch pad. Once bailed out of jail, Casey finds a mysterious Tomorrowland token among her belongings, and upon touching it, she is magically transported to a wheat field with the distinguished metropolis of Tomorrowland in the distance. However, when trying to reach this futuristic city, she finds that boundaries in the real world inhibit her in this golden future world, even though she cannot see them while holding the token. It’s a novel idea, and one of the movie’s better moments, but if you’ve seen the film’s trailers then you’ve already seen most of how it plays out.
The trailers also spoiled Tomorrowland‘s best, and arguably only good action sequence, in which androids invade Frank’s house in an attempt to capture Casey, who possesses that coveted Tomorrowland token. It’s a well-crafted and exciting moment that demonstrates Brad Bird’s talent, but it’s also an unfortunately rare instance of entertainment in what is otherwise a dull film. As for the aforementioned androids, they’re unbelievably cheesy and lame. These robot villains are sourced from the pinnacle of technological advancement, and yet they’re remarkably derivative and hokey. The most original thing about them is that they blink their eyelids alternatively. That’s some real cutting edge creativity right there! To top it off, Tomorrowland even throws in an android-to-human love story for good measure, because why not? Robots need love too, you guys!
You know what the most troubling thing about Tomorrowland is for me? The fact that Brad Bird was the very first choice to direct Star Wars: Episode 7 and he turned it down to make this movie instead. That is almost incomprehensible to me. Even more so when you consider that Tomorrowland features a comic book store scene that is literally brimming with Star Wars props. It’s a decision that may come back to haunt him, but given how poor this movie is, I’m now actually thanking my lucky Death Stars that he’s not the one making the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
In the end, Tomorrowland is a movie that I don’t feel any connection to. I wasn’t captivated by the characters or the performances (not even George Clooney could save this one). The plot was a total bore. The sci-fi elements missed the mark. The visuals were mostly just decent, and tended to look more fake than impressive. The underlying message of hope was weak, and please, don’t even get me started on that cliché “two wolves” story that was needlessly tacked in. Nothing about the movie ever reminded me of the actual Tomorrowland from Disneyland Park, nor did it share its level of creativity. The longer the movie went on, the more I wanted it to end. I can honestly tell you that I have had more enjoyment standing in line for two hours for a ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland than I ever had while watching this movie. If this is how dull our ideal future is going to be, then sign me up for a front row ticket to the apocalypse where the future belongs to the mad!
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.15.)
With the star talent of George Clooney, the directorial skill of Brad Bird, and the film’s promising trailers, I must admit that I was caught off guard by Tomorrowland‘s lackluster execution. The greatest compliment I can give the film is that it’s blandly passable, but in no area is it particularly good, engaging, or thought-provoking. For being a film that is about celebrating creativity, it sure is lacking in that regard. Tomorrowland itself feels like a poorly-realized pipe dream. It’s supposed to be this wonderfully ingenious world of innovation, but nothing about it struck me as notably exciting or exceptional. From the surface, it looks like your typical futuristic metropolis, complete with jetpacks and flying cars. Beyond that, I couldn’t really tell you what makes Tomorrowland so special, and I believe that’s largely because we’re given so little access to it. The movie treats us as outsiders to this place, and we spend the majority of the film tagging alongside the two main characters as they try to get in, but we’re never given any sort of rewarding payoff once we get there. The world of Tomorrowland is practically nothing more than a shallow, fantasy world facade.
The movie starts off with an uncomfortably awkward recruitment video recorded by Tomorrowland’s two main characters, Frank Walker (George Clooney) and Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), in which they argue over how they should tell their story. It’s a poor attempt at humor with banter that feels entirely forced. If anything, this overly long introduction should have served as an early indicator that I was about to embark on a two-hour snooze-fest. From there we transition to each of their character’s respective origin stories, and their separate journeys that led them to Tomorrowland.
Frank’s story takes us to the 1964 World’s Fair at Disneyland where as a young boy he’s trying to enter with his faulty jetpack creation. His invention is rejected, but he still manages to catch the attention of a girl named Athena, who gives him a special pin with the Tomorrowland logo. Young Frank is ordered to secretly follow her in the theme park, leading to the “It’s A Small World” ride, where he’s magically transported to Tomorrowland. Here we’re given our first glimpse of this futuristic world, but the entire sequence isn’t nearly as fun or awe-inspiring as it should be. Frank takes to the skies in his newly-repaired jetpack and yet this significant moment somehow winds up feeling surprisingly empty. The movie fails to capture that youthful element of whimsy and excitement that comes from discovery.
Next we learn the much more recent story of Casey, an enthusiastic high school student with a passion for making the world a better place. She’s the daughter of a struggling inventor who gets herself in trouble with the law after trying to sabotage the government’s planned demolition of a NASA launch pad. Once bailed out of jail, Casey finds a mysterious Tomorrowland token among her belongings, and upon touching it, she is magically transported to a wheat field with the distinguished metropolis of Tomorrowland in the distance. However, when trying to reach this futuristic city, she finds that boundaries in the real world inhibit her in this golden future world, even though she cannot see them while holding the token. It’s a novel idea, and one of the movie’s better moments, but if you’ve seen the film’s trailers then you’ve already seen most of how it plays out.
The trailers also spoiled Tomorrowland‘s best, and arguably only good action sequence, in which androids invade Frank’s house in an attempt to capture Casey, who possesses that coveted Tomorrowland token. It’s a well-crafted and exciting moment that demonstrates Brad Bird’s talent, but it’s also an unfortunately rare instance of entertainment in what is otherwise a dull film. As for the aforementioned androids, they’re unbelievably cheesy and lame. These robot villains are sourced from the pinnacle of technological advancement, and yet they’re remarkably derivative and hokey. The most original thing about them is that they blink their eyelids alternatively. That’s some real cutting edge creativity right there! To top it off, Tomorrowland even throws in an android-to-human love story for good measure, because why not? Robots need love too, you guys!
You know what the most troubling thing about Tomorrowland is for me? The fact that Brad Bird was the very first choice to direct Star Wars: Episode 7 and he turned it down to make this movie instead. That is almost incomprehensible to me. Even more so when you consider that Tomorrowland features a comic book store scene that is literally brimming with Star Wars props. It’s a decision that may come back to haunt him, but given how poor this movie is, I’m now actually thanking my lucky Death Stars that he’s not the one making the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
In the end, Tomorrowland is a movie that I don’t feel any connection to. I wasn’t captivated by the characters or the performances (not even George Clooney could save this one). The plot was a total bore. The sci-fi elements missed the mark. The visuals were mostly just decent, and tended to look more fake than impressive. The underlying message of hope was weak, and please, don’t even get me started on that cliché “two wolves” story that was needlessly tacked in. Nothing about the movie ever reminded me of the actual Tomorrowland from Disneyland Park, nor did it share its level of creativity. The longer the movie went on, the more I wanted it to end. I can honestly tell you that I have had more enjoyment standing in line for two hours for a ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland than I ever had while watching this movie. If this is how dull our ideal future is going to be, then sign me up for a front row ticket to the apocalypse where the future belongs to the mad!
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.15.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Jul 28, 2021
Cinematography and Sound Design - very Hitchcockian (1 more)
Concept and initial set-up of the movie
Dafter than the Dharma initiative.
"Old" is the latest from the gloriously inconsistent writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. Will this be great Shyamalan (à la "The Sixth Sense") or dire Shyamalan (à la "The Last Airbender")? The answer, in my view, is somewhere in the middle. It's a curate's egg of a movie.
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Zombie Strippers (2008) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
In the not too distant future where George Bush has somehow fluked his way into another term as president, a chemo-virus has broken out in a small town. The Z-Squad is sent in to eliminate the problem, but a member of the squad gets infected and flees. He manages to to find refuge in an underground strip club, which has also been deemed illegal by the government of the future. The soldier takes a turn for the worse and finds himself a member of the undead only to take the club's biggest star as his first victim. She continues to dance and the odd thing is...the customers love it. Zombie strippers are the new sex appeal. As the money piles up, so do the victims. Will the chemo-virus continue to spread and if so...how will it be contained?
First of all, don't be confused. This is movie is one of the cheesiest films ever. I almost turned it off several times and I honestly can't tell you why I'm reviewing this thing. The sad thing is it's like a trainwreck in slow motion. You can't look away from it once you start watching and you have to see not only how it's going to end, but who's going to make it out alive. Not that you really care, but you wonder whose really deemed worthy of surviving said trainwreck. It is ludicrous, ridiculous, and absurd...but it's amusing as hell.
How ridiculous is it? Let's see...strippers being turned into zombies and becoming super strippers, zombies being sexy, having the most stereotypical Mexican janitor...ever, the casts biggest names being Jenna Jameson and Robert Englund, special effects you'd find in Xena: Warrior Princess, a Christian stripping for her nanna, Jenna Jameson shooting ping pong balls and pool balls out her...well...I'll let you see that for yourself, angry dragons, and foamy chewbaccas...the list goes on and on. I'm sure I missed so many more. The sad thing is that despite being the cheesiest of cheese and being as bad as it is, there's still a few good things buried under the cheese. It's kind of like an enchilada made with cheap cheese. All the cheap stuff is on the outside, but there's some good stuff on the inside. The most obvious being that there's a lot of nudity in this, which is good because it'll probably be one of the only things that'll keep anyone watching. Robert Englund's over the top performance as the germophobic strip club owner is pretty memorable. Also, the make-up effects are surprisingly good at times. The special effects are horrid, but the make-up is actually better than you think it'd be.
In a film as ridiculously cheesy as this, I can't blame anyone if they turn it off before it reaches the half hour mark. The thing is though if you stick with it, it's actually enjoyable because it's so bad. It's cheesy, it's amusing, the acting is so bad that you'll be quoting it for days, the plot is pointless, and it even has a weak attempt at a twist in the ending! My point is that it's a bad film and I'm not defending it, but if you manage to sit through the whole thing...you may find yourself enjoying parts of it like I did.
First of all, don't be confused. This is movie is one of the cheesiest films ever. I almost turned it off several times and I honestly can't tell you why I'm reviewing this thing. The sad thing is it's like a trainwreck in slow motion. You can't look away from it once you start watching and you have to see not only how it's going to end, but who's going to make it out alive. Not that you really care, but you wonder whose really deemed worthy of surviving said trainwreck. It is ludicrous, ridiculous, and absurd...but it's amusing as hell.
How ridiculous is it? Let's see...strippers being turned into zombies and becoming super strippers, zombies being sexy, having the most stereotypical Mexican janitor...ever, the casts biggest names being Jenna Jameson and Robert Englund, special effects you'd find in Xena: Warrior Princess, a Christian stripping for her nanna, Jenna Jameson shooting ping pong balls and pool balls out her...well...I'll let you see that for yourself, angry dragons, and foamy chewbaccas...the list goes on and on. I'm sure I missed so many more. The sad thing is that despite being the cheesiest of cheese and being as bad as it is, there's still a few good things buried under the cheese. It's kind of like an enchilada made with cheap cheese. All the cheap stuff is on the outside, but there's some good stuff on the inside. The most obvious being that there's a lot of nudity in this, which is good because it'll probably be one of the only things that'll keep anyone watching. Robert Englund's over the top performance as the germophobic strip club owner is pretty memorable. Also, the make-up effects are surprisingly good at times. The special effects are horrid, but the make-up is actually better than you think it'd be.
In a film as ridiculously cheesy as this, I can't blame anyone if they turn it off before it reaches the half hour mark. The thing is though if you stick with it, it's actually enjoyable because it's so bad. It's cheesy, it's amusing, the acting is so bad that you'll be quoting it for days, the plot is pointless, and it even has a weak attempt at a twist in the ending! My point is that it's a bad film and I'm not defending it, but if you manage to sit through the whole thing...you may find yourself enjoying parts of it like I did.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 8 Mile (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 8 Mile starts as we head to Detroit to follow Jimmy B-Rabbit Smith (Eminem) as along with his friends David ‘Future’ Porter (Phifer) Cheddar Bob (Jones), Sol George (Miller) are trying to make an impact in the raping world, this world is dominated by the black community though he does have the skills.
The world is filled with gangs that are out for control, Jimmy must deal with his mother Stephanie (Basinger) and her problems as well as meeting a new love in Alex (Murphy), we follow as he is desperate to get out of the town which has held back man before.
Thoughts on 8 Mile
Characters – Jimmy B-Rabbit Smith is a young man who aspires to be a rapper, he is from the wrong side of town in Detroit, where he is given a chance to prove himself in the underground rap battle world, where any wrong move could be his last move with the gangs around him. He has the close friends that will watch his back, while working a dead-end job for any money he can get. Stephanie Smith is the mother of Rabbit, she is dating an aggressive man around he sons age and struggling to pay the rent to keep the roof over her daughter’s head. She does try to do the best things but has her own personal demons holding her back. David is the closest friend to Jimmy, he offers him the chance he wants to reach the next level but also needs to be the one to stop him making the mistakes in his life. Alex is the new romance in Jimmy’s life, she dreams of leaving too, to become a model which helps the to connect on a level unlike what Jimmy is used to.
Performances – Eminem is strong in this leading role, there are a few moments where he does look lost, one second too long for fight sequences, but the emotional levels he shows good. Kim Basinger is good in her role which shows that we have the most experience from her. Mekhi Phifer continued his rise in the early 2000s with this performance where he shows his ability to blend into any film. the whole cast performers well through the film with talent that went onto bigger things.
Story – The story shows the struggles of a young man trying to break into the world of rapping in the mean streets of Detroit, he is from the wrong side of the town and the gangs are always dangerous. Seeing the struggles for everyday life is very interesting to see unfold, however I was expecting something different with more rap battles. If you are a fan of the underground rap scene this will be a story that you want to watch.
Music – The music in the film starts with a battle rap and I was expecting more as the song Lose yourself did win Best Oscar Song.
Settings – The film shows us just how difficult growing up in Detroit can be, we feel the tension and feeling of abandonment the city is feeling.
Scene of the Movie – Battle rap.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough rapping.
Final Thoughts – This is a look at the mean streets of Detroit in the battle rap world where every corner could be dangerous.
Overall: The rap world unfolded.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/02/27/abc-film-challenge-oscar-nomination-8-mile-2002/
The world is filled with gangs that are out for control, Jimmy must deal with his mother Stephanie (Basinger) and her problems as well as meeting a new love in Alex (Murphy), we follow as he is desperate to get out of the town which has held back man before.
Thoughts on 8 Mile
Characters – Jimmy B-Rabbit Smith is a young man who aspires to be a rapper, he is from the wrong side of town in Detroit, where he is given a chance to prove himself in the underground rap battle world, where any wrong move could be his last move with the gangs around him. He has the close friends that will watch his back, while working a dead-end job for any money he can get. Stephanie Smith is the mother of Rabbit, she is dating an aggressive man around he sons age and struggling to pay the rent to keep the roof over her daughter’s head. She does try to do the best things but has her own personal demons holding her back. David is the closest friend to Jimmy, he offers him the chance he wants to reach the next level but also needs to be the one to stop him making the mistakes in his life. Alex is the new romance in Jimmy’s life, she dreams of leaving too, to become a model which helps the to connect on a level unlike what Jimmy is used to.
Performances – Eminem is strong in this leading role, there are a few moments where he does look lost, one second too long for fight sequences, but the emotional levels he shows good. Kim Basinger is good in her role which shows that we have the most experience from her. Mekhi Phifer continued his rise in the early 2000s with this performance where he shows his ability to blend into any film. the whole cast performers well through the film with talent that went onto bigger things.
Story – The story shows the struggles of a young man trying to break into the world of rapping in the mean streets of Detroit, he is from the wrong side of the town and the gangs are always dangerous. Seeing the struggles for everyday life is very interesting to see unfold, however I was expecting something different with more rap battles. If you are a fan of the underground rap scene this will be a story that you want to watch.
Music – The music in the film starts with a battle rap and I was expecting more as the song Lose yourself did win Best Oscar Song.
Settings – The film shows us just how difficult growing up in Detroit can be, we feel the tension and feeling of abandonment the city is feeling.
Scene of the Movie – Battle rap.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough rapping.
Final Thoughts – This is a look at the mean streets of Detroit in the battle rap world where every corner could be dangerous.
Overall: The rap world unfolded.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/02/27/abc-film-challenge-oscar-nomination-8-mile-2002/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Valkyrie (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Bringing historical films to the screen can be a challenge for a number of reasons. First, the filmmakers often have to condense events that happened over several weeks and months down to a two to three hour format. Secondly, holding the audience can be tricky especially when it covers an event where the outcome is well known. The final and perhaps most important obstacle is that of casting. For every George C. Scott who nailed the iconic figure of Patton there are countless others that have to be kind, not been up to the task.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
WHEN golden banded honeybees, so often likened to summer and honey sweetness, become the metaphor of a dystopian version of British Government and the Monarchy, what is one left to think?
Established British playwright Laline Paull’s debut novel, The Bees, represents just that. I may just be reading too much into the buzz, but the Oxford alumni who has had two plays performed at the Royal National Theatre must have some of the country in her subconscious as she writes.
The novel follows the life of worker honeybee Flora 717, born of the lowest class of bee society. In a world where mutation and difference is destroyed on sight, the larger-than-average Flora is saved from destruction by opportunities born from austerity in the hive, where ‘the season is deformed by rain, and the flowers shun’ the bees, so they need every available worker.
The life of the honeybee turns out to be symmetrical of Plato’s Republic and his utopia, where children are told what role they will have in life based on their ‘blood’. Plato divided the bronze craftsman, silver guardians and golden philosophers, and Paull divides bees in their ‘kin’ groups, named after flowers, and are priestesses to police, foragers who can fly outside the hive to the sanitation Flora, the lowest, and are given ‘no flower’. ‘A Flora may not make Wax for she is unclean, nor Propolis for she is clumsy, nor ever may she forage for she has no taste, but only may she serve her hive by cleaning,’ but the talented Flora 717 wants more.
Throughout the novel, Paull shows the same attachment to characters as George R R Martin, author of the Game of Thrones novels; the frequent loss deepens the heartbreak Flora must overcome as she fights to defy her set fate and claim the most illegal of desires. No reader will escape the anguish that concludes each new adventure.
The hive is akin to a cult, with leaders keeping their inferiors in check, with fear, intoxication and just a little hypnosis. The cult is complete with its own religion, mantra and even a parody of the Lord’s Prayer, ‘Hallowed be thy womb’, arguably my favourite part. This made the story really exciting, being on the ‘outside looking in’ as the reader, I wanted to encourage Flora to defy, but felt the fear of going against her sisters (this isn’t a cult bond word, they are all blood sisters, for only ‘the queen may breed’).
Paull’s scriptwriting has nurtured the ability to make the reader visualise her words exactly how she writes them, and that is clear within The Bees. I can see the wax panels that Flora 717 scuttles across as she travels around her hive, I can imagine the wax cribs in the nursery and know the deadly yellow and fine lines of the enemy wasp. In the ‘glass cage’ when Flora discovers the Venus Fly Trap, Paull never mentions the plant by name, but speaks only of their ‘red mouths’ with ‘white filaments’ on each ‘inner lip’, they ‘bore no pollen, the only nectar a viscous slick at the join of the petals’. But for all her beautiful imagery seeping off the pages, The Bees was not a book I have felt submerged in.
Full review on <a href="http://www.natari-himi.com">natari-himi.com</a>;
Established British playwright Laline Paull’s debut novel, The Bees, represents just that. I may just be reading too much into the buzz, but the Oxford alumni who has had two plays performed at the Royal National Theatre must have some of the country in her subconscious as she writes.
The novel follows the life of worker honeybee Flora 717, born of the lowest class of bee society. In a world where mutation and difference is destroyed on sight, the larger-than-average Flora is saved from destruction by opportunities born from austerity in the hive, where ‘the season is deformed by rain, and the flowers shun’ the bees, so they need every available worker.
The life of the honeybee turns out to be symmetrical of Plato’s Republic and his utopia, where children are told what role they will have in life based on their ‘blood’. Plato divided the bronze craftsman, silver guardians and golden philosophers, and Paull divides bees in their ‘kin’ groups, named after flowers, and are priestesses to police, foragers who can fly outside the hive to the sanitation Flora, the lowest, and are given ‘no flower’. ‘A Flora may not make Wax for she is unclean, nor Propolis for she is clumsy, nor ever may she forage for she has no taste, but only may she serve her hive by cleaning,’ but the talented Flora 717 wants more.
Throughout the novel, Paull shows the same attachment to characters as George R R Martin, author of the Game of Thrones novels; the frequent loss deepens the heartbreak Flora must overcome as she fights to defy her set fate and claim the most illegal of desires. No reader will escape the anguish that concludes each new adventure.
The hive is akin to a cult, with leaders keeping their inferiors in check, with fear, intoxication and just a little hypnosis. The cult is complete with its own religion, mantra and even a parody of the Lord’s Prayer, ‘Hallowed be thy womb’, arguably my favourite part. This made the story really exciting, being on the ‘outside looking in’ as the reader, I wanted to encourage Flora to defy, but felt the fear of going against her sisters (this isn’t a cult bond word, they are all blood sisters, for only ‘the queen may breed’).
Paull’s scriptwriting has nurtured the ability to make the reader visualise her words exactly how she writes them, and that is clear within The Bees. I can see the wax panels that Flora 717 scuttles across as she travels around her hive, I can imagine the wax cribs in the nursery and know the deadly yellow and fine lines of the enemy wasp. In the ‘glass cage’ when Flora discovers the Venus Fly Trap, Paull never mentions the plant by name, but speaks only of their ‘red mouths’ with ‘white filaments’ on each ‘inner lip’, they ‘bore no pollen, the only nectar a viscous slick at the join of the petals’. But for all her beautiful imagery seeping off the pages, The Bees was not a book I have felt submerged in.
Full review on <a href="http://www.natari-himi.com">natari-himi.com</a>;
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A tremendously energetic and fun video game spin-off.
In this #TimesUp year, reviewing a film like “Tomb Raider” is just asking for trouble! So where shall I start digging my shallow grave?
Let’s start with the video game… “Tomb Raider” is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land mastur…. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikander’s Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, I’ll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! 🙂
For this film is good… very good.
“I’M SORRY….? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??” “But this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! … They are all uniformly s****e!”
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know – I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina“; “The Danish Girl“; “The Light Between Oceans“) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, she’s vulnerable. And it’s all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in “Edge of Tomorrow“!
Don’t you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a “fox and hounds” bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croft’s character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, “Money Monster“), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, “Darkest Hour“) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, “Murder on the Orient Express“) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead father’s original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall that’s just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from “The Lost World”!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movie’s tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (“Kingsman“; “Eddie the Eagle“) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (“District 9”) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel – the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (“The Hateful Eight“) – is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first “non-Norwegian” film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early “summer blockbuster” actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!
Let’s start with the video game… “Tomb Raider” is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land mastur…. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikander’s Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, I’ll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! 🙂
For this film is good… very good.
“I’M SORRY….? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??” “But this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! … They are all uniformly s****e!”
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know – I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina“; “The Danish Girl“; “The Light Between Oceans“) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, she’s vulnerable. And it’s all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in “Edge of Tomorrow“!
Don’t you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a “fox and hounds” bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croft’s character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, “Money Monster“), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, “Darkest Hour“) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, “Murder on the Orient Express“) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead father’s original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall that’s just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from “The Lost World”!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movie’s tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (“Kingsman“; “Eddie the Eagle“) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (“District 9”) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel – the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (“The Hateful Eight“) – is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first “non-Norwegian” film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early “summer blockbuster” actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!