Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mister Roberts (1955) in Movies
Apr 10, 2020
Well Acted
A staple of Old Hollywood under the Studio System was to adapt to the film Broadway shows that were a big hit. One such hit was the 1948 WWII play MISTER ROBERTS starring Henry Fonda (who would win a Tony Award for his performance).
In 1955, Paramount Studios mounted a film production of MISTER ROBERTS starring Fonda, James Cagney (in his last film role for Paramount - who he had been under contract to for 25 years), William Powell (in his last film role) and a young "up-and-comer" by the name of Jack Lemon.
Set in the waning days of World War II aboard a "cargo vessel", MISTER ROBERTS tells the tale of...well...Mister Roberts, the cargo officer who is keeping the ship afloat - serving as a buffer between the crew and the tyrannical Captain. Roberts longs for one thing - to join the war on a battleship, but the Captain knows his success is dependent on Roberts.
Paramount considered Fonda too old for the role, so they sought out younger stars like Marlon Brando and William Holden, but Director John Ford insisted on Fonda - and a wise choice it was. Fonda's easy-going natural personality - tinged with anger and regret - is perfectly suited for this role. He is just as at home joking around with the sailors as he is going mano-a-mano with the Captain. Also perfectly cast is the great James Cagney as the Captain who is only concerned about 1 thing - how he is perceived by the higher ups in the Navy. The conflict between Cagney and Fonda is dynamite and it is worth the price of admission just to watch these 2 Hollywood heavyweights go at it.
Jack Lemon won his first Oscar (as Best Supporting Actor) for portraying Mr. Roberts bunkmate, Ensign Pulver. It is a perfect match of character and actor and you can see where the greatness that is Jack Lemon (an under-rated actor) stems from. The surprise to me at this viewing was the strong work of William Powell (THE THIN MAN movie series) as Doc, the best friend of Mr. Roberts aboard the ship. He has an ease and rapport with Fonda and when Fonda, Powell and Lemon share the screen together the film sparkles.
And that's the best part - and the worst part - of this great film. It looks like a filmed stage play. Veteran Director John Ford looks like he was "mailing it in" on this one, in that he would just put his camera in one stationary position and let his actors play the scenes like they were in a play. This is either laziness - or genius - at the hands of Ford (I would argue probably a little of each). He was wise enough to know he had some incredible talent (Fonda, Cagney, Powell and Lemon) - and a strong script by Frank S. Nugent and Joshua Logan (based on the stage play by Logan and Thomas Hagen...based on Hagen's book), so he stayed out of the way as much as possible.
Consequently, the first part of this film is a bit talky and stagey looking and drags just a bit, but once the film catches it's steam - and these 4 stars light up the screen - this film is well worth watching.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: I caught Mister Roberts on the great cable channel TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES - but (as far as I can tell) it's not scheduled to be re-run there anytime soon (and is not streamable on the Watch TCM app), so you'll need to rent it at all the "normal" places (YouTube, GoogePLay, iTunes and Vudu)
In 1955, Paramount Studios mounted a film production of MISTER ROBERTS starring Fonda, James Cagney (in his last film role for Paramount - who he had been under contract to for 25 years), William Powell (in his last film role) and a young "up-and-comer" by the name of Jack Lemon.
Set in the waning days of World War II aboard a "cargo vessel", MISTER ROBERTS tells the tale of...well...Mister Roberts, the cargo officer who is keeping the ship afloat - serving as a buffer between the crew and the tyrannical Captain. Roberts longs for one thing - to join the war on a battleship, but the Captain knows his success is dependent on Roberts.
Paramount considered Fonda too old for the role, so they sought out younger stars like Marlon Brando and William Holden, but Director John Ford insisted on Fonda - and a wise choice it was. Fonda's easy-going natural personality - tinged with anger and regret - is perfectly suited for this role. He is just as at home joking around with the sailors as he is going mano-a-mano with the Captain. Also perfectly cast is the great James Cagney as the Captain who is only concerned about 1 thing - how he is perceived by the higher ups in the Navy. The conflict between Cagney and Fonda is dynamite and it is worth the price of admission just to watch these 2 Hollywood heavyweights go at it.
Jack Lemon won his first Oscar (as Best Supporting Actor) for portraying Mr. Roberts bunkmate, Ensign Pulver. It is a perfect match of character and actor and you can see where the greatness that is Jack Lemon (an under-rated actor) stems from. The surprise to me at this viewing was the strong work of William Powell (THE THIN MAN movie series) as Doc, the best friend of Mr. Roberts aboard the ship. He has an ease and rapport with Fonda and when Fonda, Powell and Lemon share the screen together the film sparkles.
And that's the best part - and the worst part - of this great film. It looks like a filmed stage play. Veteran Director John Ford looks like he was "mailing it in" on this one, in that he would just put his camera in one stationary position and let his actors play the scenes like they were in a play. This is either laziness - or genius - at the hands of Ford (I would argue probably a little of each). He was wise enough to know he had some incredible talent (Fonda, Cagney, Powell and Lemon) - and a strong script by Frank S. Nugent and Joshua Logan (based on the stage play by Logan and Thomas Hagen...based on Hagen's book), so he stayed out of the way as much as possible.
Consequently, the first part of this film is a bit talky and stagey looking and drags just a bit, but once the film catches it's steam - and these 4 stars light up the screen - this film is well worth watching.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: I caught Mister Roberts on the great cable channel TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES - but (as far as I can tell) it's not scheduled to be re-run there anytime soon (and is not streamable on the Watch TCM app), so you'll need to rent it at all the "normal" places (YouTube, GoogePLay, iTunes and Vudu)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Babyteeth (2019) in Movies
Aug 25, 2020
I've had more fun at the orthodontist's
Now, before I start, I know I'm likely to be at odds with a lot of viewers on this one. Having had a glance at the IMDB ratings, I can see a lot of arthouse love for this Australian movie. But this really was not for me.
Eliza Scanlen plays Australian schoolgirl Milla, displaying typically rebellious symptoms of adolescence but hampered by a crippling medical issue. She meets a 23-year old drug addict, Moses (Toby Wallace), and the pair feel an immediate pull towards each other, much to the horror of her parents Henry (Ben Mendelsohn) and Anna (Essie Davis). The kids are dysfunctional (for different reasons); the parents are not much better. Adding to the drama is a strange violin teacher (Eugene Gilfedder) and a pregnant (MILF-to-be) next door neighbour (Emily Barclay). We follow the life and love of Milla as she struggles with her circumstances... and the last of her Babyteeth.
I can draw parallels here to the movie "Animals" from last year. Indeed to the Oscar-winner "Moonlight" from four year's ago. I could readily perceive it to be intelligent and artfully produced. But I'm afraid I felt zero empathy or pull from any of the characters. Given that, and the slow burn of writer Rita Kalnejais's screenplay, I found myself constantly looking at my watch for the last half-hour of the movie.
The movie's not without its merits though. Babyteeth has picked up a number of nominations, and as many wins, on the international film-festival circuit, mostly for the direction of Shannon Murphy. This is a first-time feature for TV-director Murphy (she directed two episodes from this year's series of "Killing Eve" for example). Awards have also gone to Toby Wallace for his portrayal of the slightly unhinged and unpredictable Moses. But for me, it was Eliza Scanlen's performance as Milla that appealed to me most and kept my attention. Other-worldly and slightly ethereal, she pulls off the role well. Scanlen was of course Beth March in the recent superb version of "Little Woman". (She's a young lady with great potential, but she needs to be careful not to get typecast as sickly waifs!)
Babyteeth was for me a curate's egg in the photography department. Cinematography was by Andrew Commis, and I found it both breathtaking and frustrating in almost equal measure. There's a scene towards the end of the movie with Milla's face half-lit in the moonlight that was reminiscent to me of the star-child in "2001: A Space Odyssey". Simply gorgeous. And scenes in a nightclub are both strangely and effectively shot. But - and art-house movies seem to mandate this approach - the movie is shot on handheld cameras. This makes a lot of the shots drift in and out of focus. Moreover - and most frustratingly for me - it makes the multitude of scene titles, employed in the telling, float ever-so-slightly against the backgrounds, with a generally nauseating effect.
I'll no doubt feel a right Charlie if Babyteeth gets into the Oscars nominations short-list. But for me, it just wasn't engaging enough to be entertaining. It's billed as a "Comedy Drama". While there were a few good comic lines, it rarely made me do more than smile. And as for the drama, I'm afraid tears were far from being spilled. It's in no way a "bad film": it just personally wasn't for me.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movie on https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/25/babyteeth-you-might-have-more-fun-at-the-orthodontists/.)
Eliza Scanlen plays Australian schoolgirl Milla, displaying typically rebellious symptoms of adolescence but hampered by a crippling medical issue. She meets a 23-year old drug addict, Moses (Toby Wallace), and the pair feel an immediate pull towards each other, much to the horror of her parents Henry (Ben Mendelsohn) and Anna (Essie Davis). The kids are dysfunctional (for different reasons); the parents are not much better. Adding to the drama is a strange violin teacher (Eugene Gilfedder) and a pregnant (MILF-to-be) next door neighbour (Emily Barclay). We follow the life and love of Milla as she struggles with her circumstances... and the last of her Babyteeth.
I can draw parallels here to the movie "Animals" from last year. Indeed to the Oscar-winner "Moonlight" from four year's ago. I could readily perceive it to be intelligent and artfully produced. But I'm afraid I felt zero empathy or pull from any of the characters. Given that, and the slow burn of writer Rita Kalnejais's screenplay, I found myself constantly looking at my watch for the last half-hour of the movie.
The movie's not without its merits though. Babyteeth has picked up a number of nominations, and as many wins, on the international film-festival circuit, mostly for the direction of Shannon Murphy. This is a first-time feature for TV-director Murphy (she directed two episodes from this year's series of "Killing Eve" for example). Awards have also gone to Toby Wallace for his portrayal of the slightly unhinged and unpredictable Moses. But for me, it was Eliza Scanlen's performance as Milla that appealed to me most and kept my attention. Other-worldly and slightly ethereal, she pulls off the role well. Scanlen was of course Beth March in the recent superb version of "Little Woman". (She's a young lady with great potential, but she needs to be careful not to get typecast as sickly waifs!)
Babyteeth was for me a curate's egg in the photography department. Cinematography was by Andrew Commis, and I found it both breathtaking and frustrating in almost equal measure. There's a scene towards the end of the movie with Milla's face half-lit in the moonlight that was reminiscent to me of the star-child in "2001: A Space Odyssey". Simply gorgeous. And scenes in a nightclub are both strangely and effectively shot. But - and art-house movies seem to mandate this approach - the movie is shot on handheld cameras. This makes a lot of the shots drift in and out of focus. Moreover - and most frustratingly for me - it makes the multitude of scene titles, employed in the telling, float ever-so-slightly against the backgrounds, with a generally nauseating effect.
I'll no doubt feel a right Charlie if Babyteeth gets into the Oscars nominations short-list. But for me, it just wasn't engaging enough to be entertaining. It's billed as a "Comedy Drama". While there were a few good comic lines, it rarely made me do more than smile. And as for the drama, I'm afraid tears were far from being spilled. It's in no way a "bad film": it just personally wasn't for me.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movie on https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/25/babyteeth-you-might-have-more-fun-at-the-orthodontists/.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Eternals (2021) in Movies
Nov 10, 2021
Works Well Enough
The interesting thing about creating a Cinematic “Universe” (like Marvel has done and others are desperately trying to do) is that because it is a “Universe” you can tell different types of stories with different types of characters in differing styles.
In ETERNALS, Marvel has really attempted to open up their “Universe” by introducing their audience to the Eternals, celestial beings that are tangentially interested in the goings-on of the human world.
It’s not a Super-Hero movie, per se, it’s a world of “Gods and Monsters” (to steal a phrase) that has repercussions across the Universe.
So with this background in mind, the ETERNALS succeeds, mostly, because it is trying to be something…else. NOT a SUPERHERO film, but something on a different plane.
Unfortunately, this probably will put off “Fan-boys” who want “more of the same” (more Avengers, more Thanos, more F/X smashy-smashy, fight-fight) and ETERNALS just isn’t intended to be that.
Your first clue that this film is trying to be something else is the choice of Director - recent Oscar Winner Chloe Zhao (NOMADLAND), known for her personal stories and interesting visuals. She brings that sensibility to this film and it (mostly), though it is the type of Cinematic style that works best in low-res (like an independent film like Nomadland) rather than large IMAX Comic-book film event films.
The movie itself is entertaining…enough. It is, necessarily, slow at the beginning as Zhao needs to set up these characters and the realm that they are playing on (and orient the audience as to how this fits with the AVENGERS:ENDGAME of it all). There are 10 (yes, TEN) Eternals to introduce along with ancillary characters, so the film has to take some time to gather steam.
And…it gathers steam, not in the action sequences (which are serviceable) but in the characters and the character interactions and this is where the film really works for me.
Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) and Richard Madden (Rob Stark on GAME OF THRONES) are, basically, the lead characters as their relationship takes center stage for most of the film - and these 2 (especially Chan) holds the screen well, which is tough to do since there are so many characters - and so much other things going on.
The real hero of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, IMHO, is the Casting Director who, time-after-time, plucks relative unknowns and throws them into parts that they are perfectly cast for…Salma Hayak (leader of Eternals, Ajak), Lia McHugh (Sprite), Brian Tyree Henry (Phastos), Lauren Ridloff (Makkari) and Barry Keoghan (Druig) all fit their parts well, with the relationship between Makkari and Druig being particularly interesting.
Speaking of interesting relationships, Ma Dong-seok (so good in the Korean Zombie flick TRAIN TO BUSAN) as Gilgamesh almost steals the screen from MOVIE STAR Angelina Jolie’s Thena…almost. Jolie is a MOVIE STAR that just walks onto the screen and commands your attention - and she is perfectly cast as Thena. It is a very smart use of her talents…and her personae as a MOVIE STAR and works very well.
Finally, it took awhile for the film to figure out what to do with Kumail Nanjiani’s character of Kingo (and Nanjiani’s tremendous comedic talents), but, eventually, they do figure it out - but not entirely - which is really the problem with this film. It ALMOST figures out the formula to make this huge, broad, galactic film very personal, but doesn’t quite get there.
I liked, but didn’t LOVE, ETERNALS. I applaud what this film tries to do and I am fine with where it went and was entertained by it. If this is the first part of a journey, then I am anxious to see where ETERNALS goes from here. If this is a “one-off” film, then it doesn’t, quite, work well enough.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
In ETERNALS, Marvel has really attempted to open up their “Universe” by introducing their audience to the Eternals, celestial beings that are tangentially interested in the goings-on of the human world.
It’s not a Super-Hero movie, per se, it’s a world of “Gods and Monsters” (to steal a phrase) that has repercussions across the Universe.
So with this background in mind, the ETERNALS succeeds, mostly, because it is trying to be something…else. NOT a SUPERHERO film, but something on a different plane.
Unfortunately, this probably will put off “Fan-boys” who want “more of the same” (more Avengers, more Thanos, more F/X smashy-smashy, fight-fight) and ETERNALS just isn’t intended to be that.
Your first clue that this film is trying to be something else is the choice of Director - recent Oscar Winner Chloe Zhao (NOMADLAND), known for her personal stories and interesting visuals. She brings that sensibility to this film and it (mostly), though it is the type of Cinematic style that works best in low-res (like an independent film like Nomadland) rather than large IMAX Comic-book film event films.
The movie itself is entertaining…enough. It is, necessarily, slow at the beginning as Zhao needs to set up these characters and the realm that they are playing on (and orient the audience as to how this fits with the AVENGERS:ENDGAME of it all). There are 10 (yes, TEN) Eternals to introduce along with ancillary characters, so the film has to take some time to gather steam.
And…it gathers steam, not in the action sequences (which are serviceable) but in the characters and the character interactions and this is where the film really works for me.
Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) and Richard Madden (Rob Stark on GAME OF THRONES) are, basically, the lead characters as their relationship takes center stage for most of the film - and these 2 (especially Chan) holds the screen well, which is tough to do since there are so many characters - and so much other things going on.
The real hero of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, IMHO, is the Casting Director who, time-after-time, plucks relative unknowns and throws them into parts that they are perfectly cast for…Salma Hayak (leader of Eternals, Ajak), Lia McHugh (Sprite), Brian Tyree Henry (Phastos), Lauren Ridloff (Makkari) and Barry Keoghan (Druig) all fit their parts well, with the relationship between Makkari and Druig being particularly interesting.
Speaking of interesting relationships, Ma Dong-seok (so good in the Korean Zombie flick TRAIN TO BUSAN) as Gilgamesh almost steals the screen from MOVIE STAR Angelina Jolie’s Thena…almost. Jolie is a MOVIE STAR that just walks onto the screen and commands your attention - and she is perfectly cast as Thena. It is a very smart use of her talents…and her personae as a MOVIE STAR and works very well.
Finally, it took awhile for the film to figure out what to do with Kumail Nanjiani’s character of Kingo (and Nanjiani’s tremendous comedic talents), but, eventually, they do figure it out - but not entirely - which is really the problem with this film. It ALMOST figures out the formula to make this huge, broad, galactic film very personal, but doesn’t quite get there.
I liked, but didn’t LOVE, ETERNALS. I applaud what this film tries to do and I am fine with where it went and was entertained by it. If this is the first part of a journey, then I am anxious to see where ETERNALS goes from here. If this is a “one-off” film, then it doesn’t, quite, work well enough.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Hoorah, it's not a total dud
The entire production of Justice League has been enveloped in the tragedy surrounding director Zack Snyder’s sudden departure from the project in March this year.
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Graduate (1967) in Movies
Jun 16, 2019
Career Defining Turn by Bancroft
On the surface, THE GRADUATE is a story of a young college graduate who has an affair with an older woman. But look beneath the surface and this film becomes much, much more.
Directed by Mike Nichols, THE GRADUATE tells the tale of Benjamin Braddock a recent College Graduate who returns home to figure out what to do with his life. He enters the film in a malaise and is paralyzed into inaction by no clear direction to his life. Taking advantage of this young man's vulnerability, family friend, Mrs. Robinson, seduces Benjamin but Benjamin realizes that he is in love with Mrs. Robinson's daughter, Elaine.
Sounds pretty straight forward, right? But under the smart, understated Direction of Mike Nichols (who won an Oscar for his work), this film becomes much, much more - subverting the notion of love and lust while driving a narrative that shines a light on the generational gap between parents and adult children in a time of great change in America - oh...and doing it in a subtly comedic way (the screenplay was wonderfully written by the great Buck Henry who makes a cameo in this film as a Hotel clerk).
Nichols, smartly, casts then relative unknown Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin because he was able to play the comedy of the awkwardness of the character (especially early on in the seduction/sex scenes with Mrs. Robinson) as well as showing emotion in emotionlessness. His Benjamin is empty - but not lacking of personality or interest - a tough tightrope to walk, but Hoffman plays it well and earned an Academy Award nomination for his work. His character does become...if I'm being honest...less interesting and more "stalker-ish" (certainly from a 21st Century perspective) as he pursues Elaine in the 2nd half of the film, so this diminishes this performance just a bit.
Also earning an Academy Award nomination is Anne Bancroft who dons a career-defining role as Mrs. Robinson. She was having trouble with the part until Director Nichols reminded her that Mrs. Robinson is seducing Benjamin not out of love or lust, but out of anger at the direction her life has drifted. We find out that Mrs. Robinson was an Art Major in College but gave up anything resembling a career when she got pregnant shortly before marrying Mr. Robinson. You can see the seething anger and resentment in the way Bancroft performs this character, with just a tinge of regret. This is a woman trying to take some control over her life - by controlling her relationship with Benjamin. And, when Benjamin decides it is time to take control of his own life, she resents it and digs her claws in deeper. It is a tour-de-force performance, one of the all-time great female performances in film.
The third side to this triangle is Elaine Robinson and as written - and portrayed by Katherine Ross - this is the most problematic of the characters. Elaine appears to be a well adjusted young woman finishing off her college career and is forced into a "date" with Benjamin at the insistence of Benjamin's parents and Elaine's father (Elaine's mother - Mrs. Robinson - is, understandably, silent on this). There is a good scene in the middle of the film where Benjamin and Elaine make a connection (which spurs Benjamin into his obsession with Elaine) but I couldn't really see what was in it for Elaine. Sure, there is the "break away from the carefully crafted life that my parents have set up for me" angle (and, surely, her desire to NOT marry the pre-Med student that she is engaged to lines right up with that) but I just didn't understand/buy her infatuation with Benjamin. Despite this, Ross earned the 3rd acting Nomination from this film.
Credit all 3 of these performances to Director Nichols who finds the right balance in every scene along with an interesting visual style that punctuates the loneliness and isolation that Benjamin is feeling. Add to that the haunting songs/sounds of the Simon and Garfunkel soundtrack - just about the only music in this film - and you have a funny, haunting and important film that is an interesting look at a time in America (the late '60's) where great change was happening and the "Generation Gap" was never more noticeable.
One last note - I LOVED the closing shot of this film. Nichols let the camera roll just a little longer than the actors expected and the look on their faces change, subtly, from surety of their decision and direction to a more "unsure" look. It is a perfect, ambiguous, way to end and I applaud Nichols for making this strong choice.
Come for the seduction, stay for the subtle humor and to watch a Director at the top of his game.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Directed by Mike Nichols, THE GRADUATE tells the tale of Benjamin Braddock a recent College Graduate who returns home to figure out what to do with his life. He enters the film in a malaise and is paralyzed into inaction by no clear direction to his life. Taking advantage of this young man's vulnerability, family friend, Mrs. Robinson, seduces Benjamin but Benjamin realizes that he is in love with Mrs. Robinson's daughter, Elaine.
Sounds pretty straight forward, right? But under the smart, understated Direction of Mike Nichols (who won an Oscar for his work), this film becomes much, much more - subverting the notion of love and lust while driving a narrative that shines a light on the generational gap between parents and adult children in a time of great change in America - oh...and doing it in a subtly comedic way (the screenplay was wonderfully written by the great Buck Henry who makes a cameo in this film as a Hotel clerk).
Nichols, smartly, casts then relative unknown Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin because he was able to play the comedy of the awkwardness of the character (especially early on in the seduction/sex scenes with Mrs. Robinson) as well as showing emotion in emotionlessness. His Benjamin is empty - but not lacking of personality or interest - a tough tightrope to walk, but Hoffman plays it well and earned an Academy Award nomination for his work. His character does become...if I'm being honest...less interesting and more "stalker-ish" (certainly from a 21st Century perspective) as he pursues Elaine in the 2nd half of the film, so this diminishes this performance just a bit.
Also earning an Academy Award nomination is Anne Bancroft who dons a career-defining role as Mrs. Robinson. She was having trouble with the part until Director Nichols reminded her that Mrs. Robinson is seducing Benjamin not out of love or lust, but out of anger at the direction her life has drifted. We find out that Mrs. Robinson was an Art Major in College but gave up anything resembling a career when she got pregnant shortly before marrying Mr. Robinson. You can see the seething anger and resentment in the way Bancroft performs this character, with just a tinge of regret. This is a woman trying to take some control over her life - by controlling her relationship with Benjamin. And, when Benjamin decides it is time to take control of his own life, she resents it and digs her claws in deeper. It is a tour-de-force performance, one of the all-time great female performances in film.
The third side to this triangle is Elaine Robinson and as written - and portrayed by Katherine Ross - this is the most problematic of the characters. Elaine appears to be a well adjusted young woman finishing off her college career and is forced into a "date" with Benjamin at the insistence of Benjamin's parents and Elaine's father (Elaine's mother - Mrs. Robinson - is, understandably, silent on this). There is a good scene in the middle of the film where Benjamin and Elaine make a connection (which spurs Benjamin into his obsession with Elaine) but I couldn't really see what was in it for Elaine. Sure, there is the "break away from the carefully crafted life that my parents have set up for me" angle (and, surely, her desire to NOT marry the pre-Med student that she is engaged to lines right up with that) but I just didn't understand/buy her infatuation with Benjamin. Despite this, Ross earned the 3rd acting Nomination from this film.
Credit all 3 of these performances to Director Nichols who finds the right balance in every scene along with an interesting visual style that punctuates the loneliness and isolation that Benjamin is feeling. Add to that the haunting songs/sounds of the Simon and Garfunkel soundtrack - just about the only music in this film - and you have a funny, haunting and important film that is an interesting look at a time in America (the late '60's) where great change was happening and the "Generation Gap" was never more noticeable.
One last note - I LOVED the closing shot of this film. Nichols let the camera roll just a little longer than the actors expected and the look on their faces change, subtly, from surety of their decision and direction to a more "unsure" look. It is a perfect, ambiguous, way to end and I applaud Nichols for making this strong choice.
Come for the seduction, stay for the subtle humor and to watch a Director at the top of his game.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Damon, Bale and fast cars (1 more)
Epic technical film making - cinematography, editing and sound - Oscar bait
A linear story on a circular track - but beautifully done.
Despite the love affair cinema has had with cars over the years, the sport of motor racing on film has been patchy. Too often the drama on the track has been deluged with melodrama off the track, as in John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" from 1966. While recent efforts such as Ron Howard's "Rush" have brought modern filming techniques to better convey the speed and excitement, it is Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" from 1971 that had previously set the bar for realism in the sport. But even there, there were a few off-track love stories to interweave into the action.
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Turn of the Screw in Books
Mar 24, 2020 (Updated Mar 24, 2020)
Well written (1 more)
Ahead of its time
Overly descriptive (1 more)
Vague
The ghost stories of the Victorian era are full of scares and mysteries- - - from the karma-ridden future, past and present ghosts of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" to the comedic ghost story by Oscar Wilde called 'the Canterville Ghost." But among all of them, Henry James found another subject to add to the pot in the novella 'the Turn of the Screw.'
With only 93 pages and the viewpoint of a governess, the story is one that has been up for debate as to its meaning for over a century, a story that blends child abuse and ghostly possession way ahead of its time. But even with its great plot, the story falls short and becomes bland throughout most of its short pages.
So why is the meaning of the Turn of the Screw still being debated? There's only one thing that has caused that --- it's in the way that James wrote the story, nothing is explained and everything is vague, these being very important parts that can keep this book from being enjoyable to many readers. Here's a summary of the story: a woman becomes governess of two children, one of which is sent home from school (technically expelled, in today's terms), the entire book has this woman trying to figure out why the child was sent home, but with ghosts thrown into the mix.
The story starts off with a man telling this ghost story from letters he received from a woman (the governess). But, even at the end of the book, the story never turns back to the man finishing the letters, yet this was done so masterfully that when you are done with the book, you completely forget about the man at the beginning, something that isn't easily done today in most writing. The man is reading these letters to a small audience that is also never revealed why, something that will seem completely irrelevant for the reader.
Readers finally get their paranormal fix when our main character, the governess, sees her first ghost in the Turn of the Screw. Our governess goes on an isolated walk when she spots an older man staring at her from a tower on the estate. But not until after a second encounter with this man, she decides to tell a housemaid about it, who quickly knows whom she speaks of. The maid is very certain that the man the governess has spotted twice is a deceased man that used to work for the family, but the maid is terrified by this because this man seems to have been abusive towards the son of the family and now seems to be continuing to torment him even after death.
Our governess seems to go down a path of paranoia as she seems to believe that the children are seeing the ghosts, too, but refusing to tell her so, and she becomes convinced that the key to getting them to confess is to finding out why the boy was sent home from school in the first place. She tries many times to get him to tell her why, but lets him take control of the conversations where he is able to divert the attention to something else. When things seem to be too much for the governess and housemaid to handle, they decide to try to write the childrens' uncle, and ask him to visit - - - this being the uncle that hired the governess and asked to never be bothered by her again, and that he wants nothing to do with his niece and nephew ever again, and especially don't write to him about any problems.
James is considered one of the greatest authors of the English language, but although this novella did very well, he wasn't known for ghost stories. His most popular book is 'the Portrait of a Lady,' which is about a young woman who comes into a large amount of money only to have it stolen by two con-men. Being that he is a Victorian-era writer, you can expect the overly long paragraphs and descriptions that the time was known for in 'the Turn of the Screw.' I personally felt the story had too many interludes of the governess' thoughts and ideas, which border on rambling. There seemed no point in the governess obsessing over why the boy was sent home from school when there are ghosts tormenting them at home- - - how this mode was suppose to work has left me clueless.
It's a usual horror trope to have children being possessed as the core of a book because it's something that can shake adults to their core at the thought that their own children could be that vulnerable. But James was way ahead of his time in the Turn of the Screw. He was able to put together psychological standpoints that weren't even discussed in his time, bouncing between child abuse with those children acting out to the power that abusers can still hold over their victims, even after death.
I'm giving the story a high rating, although I really didn't enjoy it. Why? Because it was a great idea and it was well written. If James hadn't been so vague on key parts, and hadn't left readers with a shocking unexplained ending, then maybe I would have liked it more. I can only recommend this book to people who like Victorian ghost stories, but for paranormal lovers, I think it falls short.
With only 93 pages and the viewpoint of a governess, the story is one that has been up for debate as to its meaning for over a century, a story that blends child abuse and ghostly possession way ahead of its time. But even with its great plot, the story falls short and becomes bland throughout most of its short pages.
So why is the meaning of the Turn of the Screw still being debated? There's only one thing that has caused that --- it's in the way that James wrote the story, nothing is explained and everything is vague, these being very important parts that can keep this book from being enjoyable to many readers. Here's a summary of the story: a woman becomes governess of two children, one of which is sent home from school (technically expelled, in today's terms), the entire book has this woman trying to figure out why the child was sent home, but with ghosts thrown into the mix.
The story starts off with a man telling this ghost story from letters he received from a woman (the governess). But, even at the end of the book, the story never turns back to the man finishing the letters, yet this was done so masterfully that when you are done with the book, you completely forget about the man at the beginning, something that isn't easily done today in most writing. The man is reading these letters to a small audience that is also never revealed why, something that will seem completely irrelevant for the reader.
Readers finally get their paranormal fix when our main character, the governess, sees her first ghost in the Turn of the Screw. Our governess goes on an isolated walk when she spots an older man staring at her from a tower on the estate. But not until after a second encounter with this man, she decides to tell a housemaid about it, who quickly knows whom she speaks of. The maid is very certain that the man the governess has spotted twice is a deceased man that used to work for the family, but the maid is terrified by this because this man seems to have been abusive towards the son of the family and now seems to be continuing to torment him even after death.
Our governess seems to go down a path of paranoia as she seems to believe that the children are seeing the ghosts, too, but refusing to tell her so, and she becomes convinced that the key to getting them to confess is to finding out why the boy was sent home from school in the first place. She tries many times to get him to tell her why, but lets him take control of the conversations where he is able to divert the attention to something else. When things seem to be too much for the governess and housemaid to handle, they decide to try to write the childrens' uncle, and ask him to visit - - - this being the uncle that hired the governess and asked to never be bothered by her again, and that he wants nothing to do with his niece and nephew ever again, and especially don't write to him about any problems.
James is considered one of the greatest authors of the English language, but although this novella did very well, he wasn't known for ghost stories. His most popular book is 'the Portrait of a Lady,' which is about a young woman who comes into a large amount of money only to have it stolen by two con-men. Being that he is a Victorian-era writer, you can expect the overly long paragraphs and descriptions that the time was known for in 'the Turn of the Screw.' I personally felt the story had too many interludes of the governess' thoughts and ideas, which border on rambling. There seemed no point in the governess obsessing over why the boy was sent home from school when there are ghosts tormenting them at home- - - how this mode was suppose to work has left me clueless.
It's a usual horror trope to have children being possessed as the core of a book because it's something that can shake adults to their core at the thought that their own children could be that vulnerable. But James was way ahead of his time in the Turn of the Screw. He was able to put together psychological standpoints that weren't even discussed in his time, bouncing between child abuse with those children acting out to the power that abusers can still hold over their victims, even after death.
I'm giving the story a high rating, although I really didn't enjoy it. Why? Because it was a great idea and it was well written. If James hadn't been so vague on key parts, and hadn't left readers with a shocking unexplained ending, then maybe I would have liked it more. I can only recommend this book to people who like Victorian ghost stories, but for paranormal lovers, I think it falls short.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
Darth Vader (1 more)
Fits nicely with the rest of the series
What's Old Is New
So our yearly Star Wars movie has arrived and after a complicated production it has released to rave reviews, with some outlets going as far as to compare it in quality to Empire Strikes Back, (which is widely considered to be the superior Star Wars film,) and it has even garnered a fair amount of Oscar buzz. This, along with the fact it’s a Star Wars movie meant that my expectations for this were pretty high going in and after seeing the movie there are parts of the flick that I loved and parts that I didn’t. When I wrote my Force Awakens review last year, I wrote both a spoiler free and a spoiler filled version of the review, but this year I have less time on my hands, so from this point on this will be a spoiler filled review, but the movie has been out for almost a week at the time of writing this, so if you haven’t seen the movie yet and are reading my review, well that is your own fault.
This movie for the most part impressed me. I loved how well it tied into A New Hope and how it actually fixed that movie’s biggest plothole by explaining that the weak point in the Death Star was installed on purpose by Galen Erso while designing the battle station under the Empire’s thumb, so that the Rebels would have a chance to destroy it. I loved how the movie had the balls to kills off the entire crew of the Rogue One team at the end of the movie and that corridor scene at the end with Vader was possibly the best scene I’ve seen in the cinema this year, it’s definitely up there with the airport scene in Civil War. Those are the stand out positives of the movie for me, however there were also a few flaws throughout the film.
First of all, that Grand Mof Tarkin CGI recreation of Peter Cushing was awful, the whole thing looked like a character from the Star Wars animated series. When he is first introduced it is through a glass reflection on a window he is looking out of and in that part of the scene it was fairly convincing, however he then turns around and the camera moves to a medium close up shot and all of a sudden it feels like watching a video game cutscene. Guy Henry was the actor who did the motion capture for Tarkin and that actor actually looks relatively similar to Peter Cushing, so why they didn’t just apply some makeup to Guy Henry and dye his hair gray to resemble Cushing more and recast the Tarkin role is a mystery to me, it would have also been a lot cheaper than the method that they went with. Either that or he should have only been seen in the reflection of the glass, since that was the only time that the CGI effect actually looked convincing. However, I did think that the CGI recreation of 1970’s Carrie Fischer at the end of the movie was very convincing and if it wasn’t for the movement in her mouth, I wouldn’t have known that was a CGI character. Another flaw I had with the movie was the how rushed and choppy the first act was, the characters were all introduced quickly and vaguely, then it took them ages to actually form up as a team. I get that introducing a whole cast of brand new characters in a short space of time isn’t easy, but Tarantino pulls it off in Hateful 8 and Inglorious Bastards and it works a lot better than it works here.
In a lot of ways Rogue One is a contrast to Force Awakens. In Force Awakens, the plot was essentially the same as A New Hope and was a fairly by the book, traditional Star Wars story, but the characters were what made that movie, if Poe Dameron, Rey, Finn, Kylo Ren, Han and Chewie weren’t as well written, that movie would have been mediocre at best. In Rogue One, the characters are pretty shallow and underdeveloped and they are introduced quickly and by the end of the movie none of them have really had a proper character arc. However that is not what this movie is about, this film is about a team of people coming together in order to complete a task to set up the events of the original trilogy and in that sense this movie does what it sets out to do. An example of this is the robot character K2SO, who I thought was going to start off with no humanity, then over the course of the movie realize the value of human life and then sacrifice himself for the greater good at the movie’s climax, but it turns out that the only real reason that he is helping the Rebels, is because he has been programmed to do so. This I feel sums up the level of character development present in the movie and demonstrates that it is not necessary in the film as that isn’t the movie’s purpose. What Force Awakens lacked in an original plot, it made up for in character development and what Rogue One lacks in character development, it makes up for in plot and setup, so both movies have their strengths and their flaws. Bearing in mind that I have only seen Rogue One once so far, I currently prefer Force Awakens to Rogue One, but then I prefer Return of the Jedi to Empire, so maybe that’s just me.
The writing moves the story along at a brisk pace, but it is effective in that you are constantly kept aware of where we are and what is happening at least from the end of the first act onwards. The performances are also suitable to the characters in each role, but I wouldn’t say anyone was incredible, my personal favourite was Cassian, the Alliance’s trigger finger who had shades of Han Solo thrown in as well. While watching Diego Luna’s performance, I actually thought he would be a good pick to play Nathan Drake in the Uncharted movie. The lighting in the film is well used and the CGI is spectacular for the most part other than weird waxwork Peter Cushing. The space battles are breathtaking and the action on the ground is also exciting.
Now, let’s talk about the characters that weren’t part of the Rogue One team. Forest Whittaker and Mads Mikkelson are two of my favourite actors working in Hollywood today and they are both in this movie, but I feel that both could have been used more. When they are onscreen, they are brilliant, it’s just a pity they make up such a small part of the movie. Whittaker appears only to be killed off minutes later and Mikkelson is only in two major scenes outside of a brief hologram appearance and then also gets killed off unceremoniously. The reason that a lot of people will go and see this movie however, will be to see Darth Vader. He isn’t in the movie much, but when he is it is fantastic. All of this reminds me a lot of Edwards’ last movie Godzilla, where Bryan Cranston and the monster were clearly the best parts of that movie, but for some reason were hardly in the thing. It’s as if Edwards has this idea in his head that less is always more and if he doesn’t show what people want to see in the movie for more than a few minutes at a time, then he is being original and artistic. While I understand this way of thinking from an auteur perspective, it’s fucking Star Wars and Godzilla mate, just give the people what they want. It is far less of an issue here however, since the rest of the cast in Rogue One are far more compelling than the rest of the cast in Godzilla.
Anyway, back to Vader. We first see Vader when Krennic goes to see him in his Imperial Castle in Mustafar, the same location that he was relieved of his limbs and burnt alive in a pool of lava. The way he is introduced is awesome, when Krennic arrives one of Vader’s cloaked minions enters a large room containing an ominous bacta tank, which we see Vader floating in without his suit on. This is the most vulnerable we have ever seen Vader since we saw him getting his suit fitted for the first time in Revenge Of The Sith. The tank empties and we see Vader’s stumps where his arms and legs once were and we see the burnt skin that covers his torso. Then we cut to him in full costume, complete with the classic James Earl Jones voice and force choking Krennic. He then disappears again for most of the movie, until the second to last scene where he is at his most powerful and this could genuinely be my favourite Vader scene of all time, perhaps even beating the infamous, ‘I am your father,’ scene from Empire. Vader in this scene is pure raw anger and power and the way the scene is shot and lit is fucking perfect, the audio and the editing fantastic also. The scene opens with a dark corridor with Rebels scrambling to get the hard drive containing the Death Star plans to the other end of the corridor and onto the ship that Leia is on, so that she can go on to get the plans into R2 in order to kick off A New Hope’s events. At first you wonder why the Rebels are in such a panic then you hear the terrifying breathing from Vader’s suit, but he still isn’t shown. Then the first and only lightsaber in the movie is sparked and it illuminates Vader in all of his terrifying glory before he starts tearing through the Rebels like a monster in a horror movie. This minute long scene is one of the best I’ve seen this year and it alone made the ticket price worth it for me.
Overall, Rogue One was essentially what I thought it would be based on the trailers. I don’t personally understand the overblown critical fanfare that the movie is receiving, but I’m glad that Star Wars fans like it. There are many parts of the movie that could be considered polarizing, such as the lack of Vader scenes, the dodgy Tarkin CGI, the fact that the entire Rogue One squad is killed off at the end of the movie, the absence of an opening crawl and Forest Whittaker’s raspy voice, which admittedly takes a bit of getting used to. Some of these elements I loved and some I hated, but for the most part this is an enjoyable addition to the Star Wars saga, I love how well it ties into and sets up the events of the films following this one and it was an added bonus that they actually resolved some of the original trilogy’s flaws. As I said earlier, I still prefer The Force Awakens to this, but I can see how an argument could be made for this one being a better movie.
This movie for the most part impressed me. I loved how well it tied into A New Hope and how it actually fixed that movie’s biggest plothole by explaining that the weak point in the Death Star was installed on purpose by Galen Erso while designing the battle station under the Empire’s thumb, so that the Rebels would have a chance to destroy it. I loved how the movie had the balls to kills off the entire crew of the Rogue One team at the end of the movie and that corridor scene at the end with Vader was possibly the best scene I’ve seen in the cinema this year, it’s definitely up there with the airport scene in Civil War. Those are the stand out positives of the movie for me, however there were also a few flaws throughout the film.
First of all, that Grand Mof Tarkin CGI recreation of Peter Cushing was awful, the whole thing looked like a character from the Star Wars animated series. When he is first introduced it is through a glass reflection on a window he is looking out of and in that part of the scene it was fairly convincing, however he then turns around and the camera moves to a medium close up shot and all of a sudden it feels like watching a video game cutscene. Guy Henry was the actor who did the motion capture for Tarkin and that actor actually looks relatively similar to Peter Cushing, so why they didn’t just apply some makeup to Guy Henry and dye his hair gray to resemble Cushing more and recast the Tarkin role is a mystery to me, it would have also been a lot cheaper than the method that they went with. Either that or he should have only been seen in the reflection of the glass, since that was the only time that the CGI effect actually looked convincing. However, I did think that the CGI recreation of 1970’s Carrie Fischer at the end of the movie was very convincing and if it wasn’t for the movement in her mouth, I wouldn’t have known that was a CGI character. Another flaw I had with the movie was the how rushed and choppy the first act was, the characters were all introduced quickly and vaguely, then it took them ages to actually form up as a team. I get that introducing a whole cast of brand new characters in a short space of time isn’t easy, but Tarantino pulls it off in Hateful 8 and Inglorious Bastards and it works a lot better than it works here.
In a lot of ways Rogue One is a contrast to Force Awakens. In Force Awakens, the plot was essentially the same as A New Hope and was a fairly by the book, traditional Star Wars story, but the characters were what made that movie, if Poe Dameron, Rey, Finn, Kylo Ren, Han and Chewie weren’t as well written, that movie would have been mediocre at best. In Rogue One, the characters are pretty shallow and underdeveloped and they are introduced quickly and by the end of the movie none of them have really had a proper character arc. However that is not what this movie is about, this film is about a team of people coming together in order to complete a task to set up the events of the original trilogy and in that sense this movie does what it sets out to do. An example of this is the robot character K2SO, who I thought was going to start off with no humanity, then over the course of the movie realize the value of human life and then sacrifice himself for the greater good at the movie’s climax, but it turns out that the only real reason that he is helping the Rebels, is because he has been programmed to do so. This I feel sums up the level of character development present in the movie and demonstrates that it is not necessary in the film as that isn’t the movie’s purpose. What Force Awakens lacked in an original plot, it made up for in character development and what Rogue One lacks in character development, it makes up for in plot and setup, so both movies have their strengths and their flaws. Bearing in mind that I have only seen Rogue One once so far, I currently prefer Force Awakens to Rogue One, but then I prefer Return of the Jedi to Empire, so maybe that’s just me.
The writing moves the story along at a brisk pace, but it is effective in that you are constantly kept aware of where we are and what is happening at least from the end of the first act onwards. The performances are also suitable to the characters in each role, but I wouldn’t say anyone was incredible, my personal favourite was Cassian, the Alliance’s trigger finger who had shades of Han Solo thrown in as well. While watching Diego Luna’s performance, I actually thought he would be a good pick to play Nathan Drake in the Uncharted movie. The lighting in the film is well used and the CGI is spectacular for the most part other than weird waxwork Peter Cushing. The space battles are breathtaking and the action on the ground is also exciting.
Now, let’s talk about the characters that weren’t part of the Rogue One team. Forest Whittaker and Mads Mikkelson are two of my favourite actors working in Hollywood today and they are both in this movie, but I feel that both could have been used more. When they are onscreen, they are brilliant, it’s just a pity they make up such a small part of the movie. Whittaker appears only to be killed off minutes later and Mikkelson is only in two major scenes outside of a brief hologram appearance and then also gets killed off unceremoniously. The reason that a lot of people will go and see this movie however, will be to see Darth Vader. He isn’t in the movie much, but when he is it is fantastic. All of this reminds me a lot of Edwards’ last movie Godzilla, where Bryan Cranston and the monster were clearly the best parts of that movie, but for some reason were hardly in the thing. It’s as if Edwards has this idea in his head that less is always more and if he doesn’t show what people want to see in the movie for more than a few minutes at a time, then he is being original and artistic. While I understand this way of thinking from an auteur perspective, it’s fucking Star Wars and Godzilla mate, just give the people what they want. It is far less of an issue here however, since the rest of the cast in Rogue One are far more compelling than the rest of the cast in Godzilla.
Anyway, back to Vader. We first see Vader when Krennic goes to see him in his Imperial Castle in Mustafar, the same location that he was relieved of his limbs and burnt alive in a pool of lava. The way he is introduced is awesome, when Krennic arrives one of Vader’s cloaked minions enters a large room containing an ominous bacta tank, which we see Vader floating in without his suit on. This is the most vulnerable we have ever seen Vader since we saw him getting his suit fitted for the first time in Revenge Of The Sith. The tank empties and we see Vader’s stumps where his arms and legs once were and we see the burnt skin that covers his torso. Then we cut to him in full costume, complete with the classic James Earl Jones voice and force choking Krennic. He then disappears again for most of the movie, until the second to last scene where he is at his most powerful and this could genuinely be my favourite Vader scene of all time, perhaps even beating the infamous, ‘I am your father,’ scene from Empire. Vader in this scene is pure raw anger and power and the way the scene is shot and lit is fucking perfect, the audio and the editing fantastic also. The scene opens with a dark corridor with Rebels scrambling to get the hard drive containing the Death Star plans to the other end of the corridor and onto the ship that Leia is on, so that she can go on to get the plans into R2 in order to kick off A New Hope’s events. At first you wonder why the Rebels are in such a panic then you hear the terrifying breathing from Vader’s suit, but he still isn’t shown. Then the first and only lightsaber in the movie is sparked and it illuminates Vader in all of his terrifying glory before he starts tearing through the Rebels like a monster in a horror movie. This minute long scene is one of the best I’ve seen this year and it alone made the ticket price worth it for me.
Overall, Rogue One was essentially what I thought it would be based on the trailers. I don’t personally understand the overblown critical fanfare that the movie is receiving, but I’m glad that Star Wars fans like it. There are many parts of the movie that could be considered polarizing, such as the lack of Vader scenes, the dodgy Tarkin CGI, the fact that the entire Rogue One squad is killed off at the end of the movie, the absence of an opening crawl and Forest Whittaker’s raspy voice, which admittedly takes a bit of getting used to. Some of these elements I loved and some I hated, but for the most part this is an enjoyable addition to the Star Wars saga, I love how well it ties into and sets up the events of the films following this one and it was an added bonus that they actually resolved some of the original trilogy’s flaws. As I said earlier, I still prefer The Force Awakens to this, but I can see how an argument could be made for this one being a better movie.